,7  a  *< 


P- 


4&&  "S, 


» 


PRINCETON,    N.    J. 


Presented  by  Mr   Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


Agnciv  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No. 


c 


~V 


■ 


ijff    . 


%^*f  M^£^ 


*VA  \v-^V>  W.\ 


BAPTISM 


MODE    AND    SUBJECTS 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/baptisminitsmodeOOc 


BAPTISM 


MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

BY 

ALEXANDER^ARSON,    LL.  D. 

MINISTER    OF   THE    GOSPEL. 


SKETCH  OF  HIS  LIFE, 

BY  JOHN  YOUNG. 

REVISED   BY   THE   COMMITTEE   OF   PUBLICATION. 


FIRST    AMERICAN    EDITION. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
AMERICAN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY. 

1S45. 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1844,  by  John  B.  Trevor, 
Treasurer  of  the  American  Baptist  Publication  Society,  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the 
District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


Stereotyped  by  L.  Johnson. 
Printed  by  King  &  Baird. 


WC.  APR  1 88  j 


PREFACE 


Nothing  can  be  farther  from  the  intention  of  the  following  Work, 
than  to  widen  the  breach  among  Christians  of  different  denomi- 
nations, or  to  minister  to  the  increase  of  a  sectarian  spirit.  There 
are  two  extremes  which  I  wish  to  avoid — on  the  one  hand,  a  spirit 
of  liberalism  that  supposes  the  Christian  his  own  master,  and  hesi- 
tates not  to  sacrifice  the  commandments  of  God  to  the  courtesies 
of  religious  intercourse — on  the  other,  that  sort  of  dogmatism  that 
finds  all  excellence  in  its  own  party,  and  is  reluctant  to  acknow- 
ledge the  people  of  the  Lord  in  any  denomination  but  its  own. 
Liberality  of  sentiment  is  not  a  phrase  which  I  admit  into  my 
religious  vocabulary ;  for  though  I  love  and  acknowledge  all  who 
love  the  Lord  Jesus,  I  hold  myself  as  much  under  the  law  of  God 
in  embracing  all  the  children  of  God,  as  in  forming  the  articles  of 
my  creed.  My  recognition  of  all  Christians  I  ground  on  the 
authority  of  Jesus.  To  set  at  nought  the  weakest  of  Christ's  little 
ones,  I  call  not  illiberal,  but  unchristian.  To  disown  those  whom 
Christ  acknowledges,  is  antichristian  disobedience  to  Christ.  But 
while  I  gladly  admit,  that  many  who  differ  from  me  with  respect 
to  baptism,  are  among  the  excellent  of  the  earth,  I  cannot,  out  of 
compliment  to  them,  abstain  from  vindicating  this  ordinance  of 
Christ.  This  would  show  greater  deference  to  man  than  to  God. 
"  Every  plant,"  says  Jesus,  "  that  my  heavenly  Father  hath  not 
planted,  must  be  plucked  up."  To  permit  the  traditions  of  men 
to  pass  for  the  ordinances  of  God,  is  injurious  to  the  edification  of 
Christians,  and  disrespectful  to  Christ. 


VI  PREFACE 

Some  are  diverted  from  the  examination  of  this  subject,  by  con- 
sidering it  as  a  thing  of  small  moment,  and  that  time  is  better 
spent  in  schemes  of  general  usefulness.  That  baptism  is  a  thing 
of  small  moment,  is  an  opinion  that  is  not  likely  to  have  been 
suggested  by  the  accounts  of  it  in  the  Scriptures.  It  is  an  ordi- 
nance that  strikingly  represents  the  truth  that  saves  the  soul ;  and 
is  peremptorily  enjoined  on  all  who  believe.  But  were  it  the  very 
least  of  all  the  commandments  of  Jesus,  it  demands  attention  and 
obedience  at  the  hazard  of  life  itself.  Nothing  that  Christ  has 
appointed,  can  be  innocently  neglected.  To  suppose  that  schemes 
of  general  usefulness  ought  to  take  the  place  of  the  commandments 
of  God,  is  a  direct  affront  to  the  wisdom  and  power  of  Jehovah. 
Saul  alleged  that  he  had  substantially  obeyed  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  though  he  spared  Agag,  the  king. of  Amalek,  and  a  part  of 
the  spoil  for  a  burnt-offering;  but  the  answer  of  the  prophet 
ought  for  ever  to  deter  from  the  exercise  of  a  discretionary  power, 
with  respect  to  the  commandments  of  God  :  "  Hath  the  Lord  as 
great  delight  in  burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices,  as  in  obeying  the 
voice  of  the  Lord?  Behold,  to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice  ;  and 
to  hearken,  than  the  fat  of  rams.  For  rebellion  is  as  the  sin  of 
witchcraft,  and  stubbornness  is  as  iniquity  and  idolatry :  Because 
thou  hast  rejected  the  word  of  the  Lord,  he  hath  also  rejected  thee 
from  being  king." 

Many  seem  alarmed  at  controversy,  and  shrink  from  it  as 
opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel.  It  is,  no  doubt,  a  grievous 
thing,  that  controversy  should  be  necessary ;  but  as  long  as  error 
exists,  it  is  impossible  to  avoid  controversy,  except  we  value  peace 
more  than  truth.  Can  we  forget  that  the  whole  life  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles  was  a  scene  of  never-ending  controversy  ?  He  who 
was  love  itself,  contended  constantly  against  the  errors  of  his 
time.  There  is  not  a  truth  or  an  ordinance  of  the  Gospel  that 
Christians  can  hold  without  opposition.  From  the  manner  of 
revelation,  it  seems  evidently  the  design  of  God  to  manifest  what 
is  in  man ;  and  to  leave  an  opening  to  discover  the  opposition  to 
his  wisdom  in  the  minds  even  of  his  own  people,  as  far  as  it  exists. 
The  arguments  that  are  opposed  to  the  truth  on  any  subject  of 
revelation,  have  their  effect  on  the  mind,  not  from  their  intrinsic 


PREFACE.  \'ii 

weight,  but  from  their  adaptation  to  the  corruptions  of  the  heart. 
We  yield  to  them,  because  what  they  are  designed  to  establish  is 
more  agreeable  than  that  to  which  they  are  opposed.  Of  this  we 
have  a  remarkable  example  in  the  disobedient  prophet  at  Bethel. 
When  he  was  sent  to  denounce  the  judgments  of  the  Lord  against 
Jeroboam's  altar,  he  was  forbidden  to  eat  or  drink  in  the  place. 
Yet,  after  refusing  the  hospitality  of  the  king,  he  suffered  himself 
to  be  deceived  by  another  prophet.  "  Come  home  with  me,  and 
eat  bread.  And  he  said,  I  may  not  return  with  thee,  nor  go  in 
with  thee  ;  neither  will  I  eat  bread  nor  drink  water  with  thee  in 
this  place.  For  it  was  said  to  me  by  the  word  of  the  Lord,  Thou 
shalt  not  eat  bread,  nor  drink  water  there,  nor  turn  again  to  go 
by  the  way  that  thou  earnest.  He  said  unto  him,  I  am  a  prophet 
also,  as  thou  art,  and  an  angel  spake  unto  me  by  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  saying,  Bring  him  back  with  thee  into  thine  house,  that  he 
may  eat  bread  and  drink  water.  But  he  lied  unto  him.  So  he 
went  back  with  him,  and  did  eat  bread  in  his  house,  and  drink 
water."  Many  things  might  be  plausibly  said  to  justify  or  excuse 
this  unhappy  man.  But  the  Lord  did  not  excuse  him.  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord,  Forasmuch  as  thou  hast  disobeyed  the  mouth  of  the 
Lord,  and  hast  not  kept  the  commandment  which  the  Lord  thy 
God  commanded  thee,  but  earnest  back,  and  hast  eaten  bread,  and 
drunk  water,  in  the  place  of  the  which  the  Lord  did  say  to  thee, 
Eat  no  bread,  and  drink  no  water ;  thy  carcase  shall  not  come 
unto  the  sepulchre  of  thy  fathers."  It  behoves  those  who  change 
the  mode  and  the  subjects  of  baptism,  to  consider  this  awful 
example.  If  Christ  has  commanded  his  disciples  to  be  baptized 
on  their  belief  of  the  truth,  who  can  change  it  into  the  baptism  of 
infants  ?  If  he  has  commanded  them  to  be  immersed,  who  can 
change  it  into  pouring  or  sprinkling  ? 

In  stating  the  evidence  on  my  own  side,  and  in  refuting  the 
arguments  of  my  opponents,  I  have  from  first  to  last  proceeded  as 
if  I  were  on  oath.  I  have  never  allowed  myself  to  use  artifice,  or 
to  affect  to  despise  an  argument  which  I  found  myself  unable  to 
answer.  This  is  a  resource  in  many  controversialists,  that  is  both 
disingenuous  and  mean.  I  have  not  used  one  argument  to  con- 
vince others,  that  has  not  with  myself  all  the  weight  which  I  wish 


V1U  PREFACE. 

it  to  have  with  them.  I  am  not  conscious  of  forcing  one  line  in 
the  word  of  God.  I  have  no  temporal  interest  to  serve,  by  estab- 
lishing my  views  of  baptism.  Interest  and  reputation  are  both  on 
the  other  side. 

False  first  principles,  and  false  canons  of  interpretation,  lie  at 
the  bottom  of  most  false  reasoning  and  false  criticism.  This  is 
remarkably  verified  in  the  reasonings  and  criticisms  of  my  oppo- 
nents, which  I  have  examined.  The  reader  will  find  innumerable 
instances  in  which  I  substantiate  this  charge.  Criticism  can  never 
be  a  science  until  it  founds  on  canons  that  are  self-evident.  When 
controversy  is  conducted  on  both  sides  in  this  way,  truth  will  soon 
be  established.  My  dissertation  on  the  import  of  the  word  baptizo, 
I  submit  with  confidence  to  the  judgment  of  the  really  learned. 
If  I  have  not  settled  that  controversy,  there  is  not  truth  in  axioms. 

I  earnestly  entreat  my  brethren  to  consider  the  subject  with 
patience  and  impartiality.  Though  it  may  injure  the  temporal 
interest  of  many  of  them,  yet  there  is  a  hundred-fold  advantage 
in  following  the  Lord.  It  would  give  me  the  greatest  pleasure  in 
being  the  means  of  leading  others  to  correct  views  on  this  subject. 
But  I  know  human  nature  too  well  to  be  sanguine.  Something 
more  than  the  strength  of  argument  is  necessary  to  bring  even 
Christians  to  understand  the  will  of  their  Lord.  However,  should 
I  not  make  a  single  convert,  I  shall  not  be  disappointed.  My 
first  desire  is  to  approve  myself  to  my  Lord.  If  I  please  him,  I 
hope  I  shall  be  enabled  to  bear  not  only  the  enmity  of  the  world, 
but  the  disapprobation  of  Christian  brethren.  I  expect  my  reward 
at  his  appearing.  The  motto  I  wish  to  be  engraven  on  my  heart 
is  "  Occupy  till  I  come." 


INTRODUCTION. 


As  in  the  baptismal  controversy  I  have  taken  the  side  opposed 
to  interest  and  popularity,  I  could  have  no  temptation  to  become 
a  Baptist.  Knowing  the  strength  of  prejudice  on  the  other  side, 
and  the  odium  attached  to  truth  on  this  question,  I  have,  from 
the  commencement  of  the  examination  of  the  subject,  acted  with 
the  utmost  caution  and  deliberation.  I  have  no  pleasure  in  reproach 
or  persecution.  To  me,  it  was  a  very  serious  sacrifice  to  change  my 
views  on  this  question.  All  the  other  points  in  which  I  differ  from 
the  dominant  sects  of  this  country,  do  not  give  so  much  offence 
to  the  world,  as  does  the  difference  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  I 
anticipated  the  end,  I  counted  the  cost,  and  I  am  daily  paying  the 
instalments.  In  the  present  work,  I  have,  at  great  length,  laid  the 
evidence  before  my  readers,  both  in  proof  and  refutation.  In  both 
I  have  acted  with  integrity  and  candour.  I  have,  in  every  line, 
written  as  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  with  the  full  impression  that  I 
shall  give  account.  It  is  no  light  matter  to  attempt  to  influence 
the  views  and  conduct  of  the  Lord's  people  as  to  any  part  of  his 
will.  Nothing  I  wish  more  to  avoid  than,  in  the  day  of  God,  to 
be  fomid  to  have  led  his  people  away  from  his  truth  and  ordinances. 
I  have  not  used  an  argument  winch  has  not  the  weight  on  my  own 
mind,  which  I  wish  it  to  have  on  my  reader's.  I  have  not  over- 
looked a  single  objection  from  a  conviction  of  its  difficulty,  nor 
given  it  an  evasive  or  sophistical  answer.     If  truth  is  my  client,  I 

b  ix 


X  INTRODUCTION. 

shall  not  affront  her  by  an  unworthy  defence.  I  despise  sophistry 
on  all  subjects :  when  employed  on  the  work  of  God  I  loathe  and 
abhor  it.  I  am  not  indifferent  to  the  approbation  of  honest  and 
sound-minded  men ;  to  these  I  confidently  appeal.  But  my  ambi- 
tion is,  to  be  recognised  by  Jesus  as  the  defender  of  his  truth, 
"when  he  shall  come  to  be  glorified  in  his  saints,  and  to  be 
admired  in  all  them  that  believe." 

I  have  thought  it  necessary  to  premise  some  observations  on  the 
nature  of  the  burden  of  proof.  If  they  are  sound  they  will  be  of 
immense  importance  on  any  subject.  It  is  a  thing  on  which  con- 
troversialists appear  to  be  universally  mistaken.  As  it  is  essential 
to  the  manifestation  of  truth,  it  is  not  possible  that  it  can  be  either 
optional  or  conventional. 

The  nature  of  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  with  respect  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word  which  designates  the  ordinance,  I  have 
pointed  out.  It  is  only  as  they  testify  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
word  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  that  they  can  be  called  in  as 
witnesses.  The  word  might  have  received  any  number  of 
secondary  meanings  after  this  period  without  affecting  the  ques- 
tion at  issue.  To  speak  of  meaning  conferred  by  progress  of  ideas 
after  the  institution  of  the  ordinance,  as  being  applicable  for  proof 
on  this  subject,  is  at  the  utmost  verge  of  absurdity. 

In  order  to  make  the  work  more  agreeable  and  useful  to  the 
English  reader,  I  have  not  printed  a  single  Greek  word:  and 
there  is  hardly  a  criticism  which  men  of  a  sound  mind  without 
learning  may  not  understand  and  estimate.  My  canons  and  my 
criticisms  generally  apply  to  all  languages,  and  require  nothing 
in  the  reader  but  patience  and  a  sound  judgment.  The  only  thing 
which  I  regret  in  following  this  plan  is,  that  it  prevents  me  from 
using  much  valuable  evidence  supplied  to  me  by  my  friends  from 
the  testimony  of  modern  Greek,  &c. 

To  a  highly  respectable  individual  who  sent  me  his  views  against 
the  perpetuity  of  Baptism,  I  reply,  that  I  had  originally  intended 
to  treat  on  this  point,  but,  on  consideration,  I  found  that  it  did 
not  lie  before  me,  and  would  require  to  be  treated  in  a  separate 
work. 

I  give  a  similar  answer  to  many  other  friends  who  have  sug- 


INTRODUCTION.  XI 

gested  points  which  they  wished  to  be  handled.  I  wish  to 
avoid  anything  but  what  is  essential  to  my  main  object.  A  writer 
who  attempts  to  do  every  thing  at  once,  will  do  nothing  well. 

Some  of  my  antagonists  speak  as  if  I  were  a  most  bigoted  and 
intolerant  Baptist.  In  replying  to  them  I  have  taken  no  notice  of 
this.  I  despise  misrepresentation ;  in  the  end  it  can  do  no  injury. 
So  far  from  fostering  a  sectarian  spirit,  no  one  can  more  thoroughly 
abhor  it  than  I  do.  It  mars  the  progress  of  the  truth,  which  with 
every  Christian  ought  to  be  paramount  to  all  things;  it  dis- 
honours Christ  and  his  people ;  and  it  does  injury  even  to  the 
cause  which  it  is  designed  to  favour.  While  I  defend  what  I 
consider  truth,  with  respect  to  this  ordinance,  I  cordially  embrace 
every  lover  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  concede  to  him  the  same 
privilege  that  I  take  to  myself.  In  my  mind  it  is  a  heinous  sin 
to  despise  the  very  weakest  of  all  the  children  of  God;  and  if  ever 
Christian  union  was  important,  it  is  so  in  the  present  time,  when 
all  the  machinations  of  the  Prince  of  darkness  are  employed  in 
combination  to  destroy  the  truth.  I  am  as  warm  an  advocate  for 
Christian  union  as  I  am  for  Baptism.  I  am  fully  convinced  that, 
if  Christian  union  were  fully  understood  and  acted  on  by  Chris- 
tians in  general,  right  views  of  Baptism  would  soon  prevail. 
Among  all  the  causes  that  prevent  Christians  from  impartial  and 
earnest  inquiry,  a  sectarian  spirit  is  the  chief:  it  shuts  them  out 
from  confidential  intercourse  with  one  another,  and  disinclines 
them  to  think  of  the  subject. 

Many  seem  to  think  that  zeal  for  any  of  the  things  in  which 
Christians  differ,  is  inconsistent  with  zeal  for  Christian  union. 
Accordingly,  while  some,  on  the  one  hand,  from  zeal  for  their 
peculiarities,  are  unfriendly  to  Christian  union,  others,  on  the  other 
hand,  from  zeal  for  Christian  union,  think  themselves  bound  to 
undervalue  and  neglect  the  things  in  which  Christians  differ. 
Nothing  can  be  more  unfounded  and  dishonourable  to  truth  than 
this.  On  the  contrary,  the  greatest  zeal  for  a  particular  opinion  is 
quite  consistent  with  the  utmost  regard  for  Christian  union.  Chris- 
tian union  is  not  founded  on  perfect  agreement  with  respect  to  all 
the  will  of  God,  but  agreement  about  the  truth  that  unites  them 
all  in  one  body  in  Christ.    No  difference  consistent  with  this,  can 


Xll  INTRODUCTION. 

really  separate  them.  I  press  my  views  on  my  brethren :  if  I 
succeed,  I  do  them  service ;  if  I  fail,  I  discharge  my  duty,  but  have 
no  cause  of  complaint  against  them.  They  are  not  accountable  to 
me,  and  it  is  the  essence  of  popery  to  assume  any  authority  but 
that  of  argument.  In  the  field  of  battle,  I  strike  in  earnest,  but 
even  then  it  is  the  arguments,  or  the  talents,  or  the  harmony  of 
my  opponent,  at  which  I  aim.  I  never  judge  the  heart !  I  am 
united  in  heart  with  all  who  are  united  to  Christ. 


CONTENTS. 

-      ^^^^ 

CHAPTER  I. 
THE  BURDEN  OF  PROOF. 

Importance  of  ascertaining  on  which  side  the  necessity  of  proof  lies :  Archbishop 
Whately's  opinion  on  this  subject:  use  of  the  term  Presumption,  1. — Caution 
necessary  in  using  lexicons :  The  affirmer  bound  to  advance  proof,  2. — Lord 
Chancellor  King's  opinion  as  to  the  burden  of  proof,  4. — Archbishop  Whately's 
opinion  of  Presumption,  and  his  illustrations  from  procedures  at  law,  &c,  5. — 
Pernicious  principle  of  relieving  the  prevailing  faith  from  the  burden  of  proof,  8. 
— Authors  of  the  Reformation,  11. — Episcopacy:  Infant  baptism,  12 — Arch- 
bishop Whately's  paradox,  15. — Change  in  itself  neither  good  nor  evil,  16. 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

MEANING  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTO :— DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN  BAPTO  AND  B.iPTIZO. 

Section  I. — The  word  bapto,  from  which  is  formed  baptizo,  signifies  primarily  to 
dip ;  and  as  a  secondary  meaning,  derived  from  the  primary,  it  denotes  to  dye. 
Difference  between  bapto  and  baptizo,  18. — Dr.  Gale's  opinion  on  this  subject: 
Bapto  never  used  to  denote  the  ordinance :  Baptizo  never  signifies  to  dye,  19. — 
The  force  of  the  termination  zo:  Meaning  of  baptizo  in  classical  authors,  20. — 
Baptizo  applied  to  an  object  lying  under  water,  21 — Interpretation  of  baptizo 
by  Mr.  Robinson,  of  Cambridge,  22. — Professor  Porson's  interpretation  of  the 
word,  23. — Proper  method  of  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  a  word,  23. 
Section  IL — Examples  from  Greek  authors  to  show  that  the  word  bapto  signifies 
mode,  and  that  the  idea  of  water  is  not  in  the  word  at  all. 
Examples  from  Theocritus,  24. — Aristotle,  Moschus,  ^Elian,  25. — Jamblichus, 
Suidas,  26. — Aristophanes,  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  Matt.  xxvi.  23. — 
Lycophron,  Sophocles,  27. 
Section  III. — Examples  to  illustrate  the  mode : 

From  Theocritus,  27.— Euripides,  Aristophanes,  Harpocratian,  Aristotle,  28.— 
Herodotus,  Aratus,  Aristotle,  Homer,  the  book  of  Ecclesiasticus,  29.— Ana- 
creon,  Herodotus,  from  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  30—33. 
Section  IV. — Examples  in  which  bapto  has  been  supposed  to  signify  to  wash ;  but 
in  all  of  which  it  retains  its  own  peculiar  meaning. 
Examples  from  Aristophanes,  33.— Herodotus,  Hymns  of  Callimachus,  34.— 
Dan.  iv.  30,  and  vi.  21.— Dr.  Gale's  remarks  on  this  passage,  35.— Dr.  Cox's 
replv  to  Mr.  E  win  g  respecting  this  passage,  36.— Quotations  from  Virgil,  38, 39. 

xiii 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

Section-  V. — Examples  from  Hippocrates  to  show  that  bapto  means  to  dip.-  in  one 
case  only  signifying  to  dye,  39. 
Odd  view  of  a  passage  in  Hippocrates  given  in  the  Appendix  to  E  wing's  Essay 
on  Baptism,  40. 
Section  VI. — Examples  where  bapto  means  to  dye. 
From  JEhan,  Nicolas  of  Damascus,  ^Esehylus,  45 — Dr.  Gale's  observations  on 
this  subject,  46. — The  occurrence  of  the  word  in  the  Battle  of  the  Frogs  and 
Mice,  48. 
Section  VII. — The  derivatives  of  bapto,  both  in  the  primary  and  secondary  mean- 
ing, prove  that  it  denotes  immersion. 
Examples  from  Sophocles,  Lucian,  Pindar,  49.    The  compounds  of  bapto  and 
the  proposition  with  which  it  is  construed,  50. — Examples  from  Hippocrates, 
Dioscorides,  51. 

Section  VIII. — Instances  in  which  bapto  is  used  figuratively. 

Examples  from  Aristophanes,  51. — Quotation  from  Marcus  Antoninus  Pius,  52. 
Section  EX. — That  bapto  signifies  to  dip,  is  strongly  confirmed  by  the  circum- 
stance, that  dyeing,  which  it  also  imports,  was  usually  performed  among  the 
Greeks  and  Romans  by  immersion. 
Quotations  from  Seneca,  Plato,  53. — Pliny,  Septuagint,  Hebrew  and  Chaldee 
versions :  Remarks  on  tingo  in  the  Latin,  54. 

Section  X. — Examples  of  the  occurrence  of  baptizo,  to  show  that  the  word  always 
signifies  to  dip ;  never  expressing  anything  but  mode. 
The  authority  of  Lexicons,  56. — Important  canon:  Examples  of  baptizo  from 
Polybius,  57. — Strabo,  Plutarch,  Diodorus  Siculus,  Lucian,  Porphyry,  58. — 
Homer,  Heraclides  Ponticus,  Themistius,  Septuagint,  59. — Remarks  on  Naa- 
man's  dipping  in  the  Jordan,  60. — Vossius  and  Turretine  on  a  passage  in 
Plutarch,  61. — Remarks  of  Mr.  Ewing's  learned  friend:  Quotations  from 
iEsop,  Josephus,  62. — Hippocrates,  64.— Polybius,  Dio,  Porphyry,  Diodorus 
Siculus,  65. 

Section  XL — Baptizo  never  signifies  to  wash,  except  by  dipping ;  and  is  never 
used  to  denote  purification  by  sprinkling. 
Quotations  from  Ecclesiasticus,  66. — Luke  xi.  38,  Mark  vii.  4,  p.  67. — Dr.  Camp- 
bell's opinion  with  regard  to  nipto  and  baptizo,  68. — Mr.  Ewing's  translation 
of  Mark  vii.  4,  p.  69. — Washing  of  beds,  71. — Important  canon,  72. — Differ- 
ence of  opinion  between  Dr.  Campbell  and  Mr.  Ewing  respecting  Mark  vii. 
4,  p.  74. — Abyssinian  custom,  76. — Judith  xii.  7,  p.  77. 

Section  XII The  determination  of  the  literal  meaning  of  baptizo  from  its  figvr 

rative  applications. 
Baptizo  never  alludes  to  pouring,  78 — Baptizo  applied  in  its  figurative  sense  to 
drunkenness,  sleep,  &c,  80. — To  debt,  83. — Quotations  from  Josephus,  &c. 
84.— The  figurative  baptism  of  our  Lord,  Matt.  xx.  22. — The  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  87. 

Section  XIII. — Examination  of  Mr.  Ewing's  System. 

Mr.  Ewing  derives  the  English  word  pop  from  the  Greek  bapto.-  The  meaning 


CONTENTS.  XV 

of  a  word  to  be  determined  by  its  use  in  the  language,  and  not  by  its  origin, 
87 — 89. — Mr.  Ewing's  theory  assigns  to  bapto,  as  a  primary  meaning,  a  sig- 
nification which  it  in  no  case  possesses :  Canon  of  criticism,  89. — A  word 
that  applies  to  two  modes  can  designate  neither,  90. — The  construction  of 
the  words  in  connexion  with  bapto  opposed  to  Mr.  E.'s  theory,  94. — Mr.  Ew- 
ing's mistake  with  regard  to  the  effect  prepositions  have  in  composition 
with  verbs,  96. — Mr.  E.'s  rules  of  interpretation  unreasonable,  99. 
Section  XrV. — The  baptism  of  the  Spirit. 

The  baptism  of  the  Spirit  a  figurative  expression,  having  a  reference  to  immer- 
sion :  The  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit :  The  literal  sense  of  a  word  a  guide  to 
its  figurative  applications,  104. — Pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  not  literal,  105. — 
Things  that  are  different  confounded,  108. — The  falling  of  the  Spirit  on  the 
disciples  in  the  house  of  Cornelius,  113 — Authority  of  Milton,  114. — Mr. 
Ewing's  explanation  of  the  figurative  baptism  that  was  fulfilled  in  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ,  115. — Passage  through  the  Red  Sea  figuratively  called  a  bap- 
tism, 119. — Dr.  Wardlaw's  remarks  upon  this  passage,  120. 

Section  XV. — The  syntax  of  Baptizo,  and  the  circumstances  in  which  the 
word  is  found. 

Matt.  iii.  11  examined:  Meaning  of  the  Greek  preposition  en,  121. — John  bap- 
tizing in  the  Jordan,  124. — Going  down  into  and  coming  up  out  of  the  water, 
126. — Rebekah  going  down  to  the  well,  127. — Baptism  of  the  Eunuch,  128. — 
Mr.  Ewing's  explanation  of  Acts  viii.  38,  &c,  129. — Meaning  of  eis  and  ek, 
131. — Dr.  Wardlaw's  remarks  on  en,  eis,  and  ek,  132. — Appeal  to  common 
sense,  133. — Examination  of  the  examples  in  Mr.  Ewing's  Appendix  of  ek 
and  apo,  134. — Canon  of  criticism,  141. — John  baptizing  in  Enon,  141. 

Section  XVT. — Evidence  from  the  Scripture  explanations  of  the  ordinance. 
Rom.  vi.  3 : — Mr.  Ewing's  explanation  of  this  passage,  142 — 144. — Mr.  Ewing's 
assertion  that  preparatory  rites  are  called  "  burial,"  148. — Quotations  from 
Josephus,  Moschus,  Homer,  and  Herodotus  on  the  subject,  149. — Meaning 
of  sumphutoi,  planted  together,  154. — Dr.  Wardlaw's  explanation  of  Rom.  vi. 
3,  contradictory  to  Mr.  Ewing's,  155. — The  Apostle's  figure,  158. — 1  Cor.  xv. 
29,  favourable  to  the  Baptists,  163. — Born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  164. 

Section  XVII. — Strictures  on  Mr.  Ewing's  Miscellaneous  Remarks  on  the  Hypo- 
thesis of  Immersion. 
Immersion  not  indecent  or  indelicate,  165 — Argument  from  the  scarcity  of 
water  at  Jerusalem  answered,  166 — Baptism  of  Paul  and  of  the  Philippian 
jailer,  168. 

CHAPTER  III. 


THE  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 

Section  I. — The  subjects  of  Baptism  obvious  from  the  apostolical    commission 
Matt,  xxviii.  19,  p.  169. 


XVI  CONTENTS. 

Believers  oniy  to  be  baptized :  Infants  necessarily  excluded  by  the  terms  of  the 
commission:  Dr.  Wardlaw's  reply  to  this,  170 — 173. — Remarks  on  Mark 
xvi.  16. — That  believers  only  are  to  be  baptized  clear  from  that  into  which 
they  are  said  to  be  baptized,  173. — Clear  also  from  the  command  to  teach  the 

baptized,  174 The  baptism  of  John  perfectly  coincident  with  the  apostolic 

commission  as  to  mode  and  subjects,  175. — Mr.  E wing's  observation  on  John's 
baptism,  178. — Peter's  preaching  baptism  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  179. — 

The  baptism  of  Simon  proceeded  on  the  supposition  of  his  faith,  180 The 

baptism  of  households,  181. — Baptism  of  Lydia's  household,  183. — Baptism 
alleged  to  take  the  place  of  circumcision,  185. — Children  addressed  in  the 
apostolic  epistles,  187. — Dr.  Wardlaw's  statement  that  Baptists  never  bap- 
tize households,  189. — Reply  to  Mr.  Ewing  on  the  baptism  of  households* 
190. — The  house  of  Stephanas,  193. — Reply  to  Mr.  Ewing's  question  why 
Baptists  do  not  practise  family  baptism,  1 94. — Mr.  Ewing's  appeal  to  the 
feelings,  195. — "  Salvation  is  come  to  this  house"  196. — Little  children  brought 
to  Jesus,  198. — Mr.  Hallet's  remarks  on  "Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven," 
198. — "The  promise  is  unto  you  and  your  children,"  203. — The  promise  of 
the  Spirit,  205 1  Cor.  vii.  12—14,  p.  207. 

Section  II. — Evidence  as  to  the  subjects  derived  from  allusions  to  baptism,  211. 

Section-  ni. — Abrahamic  covenant,  214. 
Infants  not  saved  by  the  new  covenant,  215. — Infants  not  saved  by  the  covenant 
with  Abraham,  217. — The  promises  of  the  covenant  of  Abraham  not  exactly 
the  same  to  his  seed  as  to  himself,  220. — Circumcision  not  intended  to  seal 
anything  personally  to  those  who  received  it,  225. — To  all  infants  circumci- 
sion equally  unsuitable  as  a  seal,  227.— Baptism  not  come  in  the  room  of 
circumcision,  228. — The  right  of  children  to  baptism  founded  on  the  faith  of 
their  parents,  erroneous,  230. — Argument  for  circumcision  being  inapplica- 
ble to  females,  231. — Reply  to  the  assertion  that  there  is  no  direct  evidence 
that  women  partook  of  the  Lord's  supper,  231. — All  the  ordinances  of  the  Jew- 
ish church  abolished,  233. — Baptism  not  the  seal  of  the  new  covenant,  234. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

REPLY  TO  MR.  BICKERSTETH. 

Section  I. — False  inference  from  the  order  in  which  Dr.  Carson  has  treated  of 
the  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism,  238. 

Section  II. — Mr.  B.  denies  that  the  word  baptizo  means  to  dip  only,  242. 

Section  III. — The  creed  of  the  Churchman  with  respect  to  baptism,  244. 

Section  IV. — Mr.  B.'s  remarks  fan  Dr.  Carson's  opinion  of  the  meaning  of  bapto 
and  baptizo,  249. 

Section  V. — Remarks  on  Dr.  Carson's  views  with  respect  to  the  subjects  of  bap- 
tism, 253.— The  meaning  of  the  term  disciple,  257< — Our  Lord's  commission 
to  teach  (disciple)  all  nations,  259. 


CONTENTS.  XV11 

CHAPTER  V. 

REPLY  TO  DR.  HENDERSON. 

Section  I. — Dr.  Henderson's  false  principles  of  interpretation,  262. 

Section  tt— Mr.  Ewing's  "  admirable  classification !"  of  the  meanings  of  baptizo, 

266. 
Section  m.— The  Syric  translation,  276. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

REPLY  TO  THE  CONGREGATIONAL  MAGAZINE. 

Section  I. — Examination  of  the  statement  that  baptizo  signifies  to  purify,  and  that 
the  word  has  other  meanings  besides  immerse,  280. 

Section  II. — The  context  of  the  word  baptizo  in  the  New  Testament,  290. — Mul- 
titude of  meanings  given  by  the  writer  to  bapto  and  baptizo,  295. — The  force 
of  the  prepositions  used  with  baptizo,  297. 

Section  III. — Baptizo  alleged  to  have  a  sacred  meaning,  304. — Important  admis- 
sion, 305. 

Section  IV. — Baptizo  applied  to  the  minds  of  men :  their  spirits  are  said  to  be 
baptized,  309. 

Section  V. — The  writer's  exposition  of  the  meaning  of  baptizo  in  the  passages 
in  which  it  occurs,  313. 

Section  VI. — The  writer's  interpretation  of  the  word  in  the  Septuagint,  317. — 
Remarks  on  Matt.  vii.  3,  &c.,  321. — Baptism  at  the  Red  Sea,  328. — John's 
Baptism,  331. — Baptism  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  with  fire,  333. — Difficulty 
started  as  to  the  number  baptized  by  John,  335. 

Section  VII. — Prepositions  construed  with  the  verb,  337. — The  meaning  of  en 
and  apo,  with  examples,  337. — Ek,  340. — Argument  from  John  iii.  23, 344. — 
Argument  from  baptism  taking  place  at  rivers,  346. 

Section  VIII. — Difference  alleged  between  baptisma  and  baptismos,  346.— Bap- 
tism and  repentance  alleged  to  coincide,  348. 

Section  LX. — The  writer's  explanation  of  the  passages  which  refer  to  baptism, 
349. — Difficulty  started  as  to  the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand,  354. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

REPLY  TO  DR.  MILLER. 

Section  I. — Dr.  M.'s  assertion  that  baptizo  does  not  necessarily  signify  immerse,  364- 

Section  II — Dr.  M.'s  substitution  of  his  solemn  assertions  for  proof,  365. — The 

washings  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  366. — Baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost : 

The  Israelites  at  the  Red  Sea,  366. — Judas  dipping  his  hand  into  the  dish : 

dipping  of  couches,  &c,  367. 

c 


XV111  CONTENTS. 

Section  III. — Alleged  facility  in  acommodating  their  belief  to  their  wishes  on  the 

part  of  the  Baptists,  371. 
Section  IV.— John's  baptism,  372. 
Section  "V. — The  baptism  of  Christ,  373. 
Section  VI.— The  baptism  of  Paul,  373. 
Section  VII.— The  baptism  of  the  eunuch,  375. 
Section  VIII. — The  baptism  of  Cornelius,  375. 
Section  EX. — The  baptism  of  the  jailer,  376. 
Section  X. — Dr.  M.'s  complaint  of  the  Baptists  making  immersion  essential  to 

the  ordinance,  378. 
Section  XI. — The  clearest  proof  of  the  original  mode  would  not  change  the 

practice  of  some  psedo-baptists,  379. 
Sbction  XII. — Dr.  M.'s  assertion  that  it  was  the  practice  to  baptize  naked,  380. 

Section  XIII Rom.vi.  1,  p.  383. 

Section  XIV. — Dr.  M.'s  second  allusion  to  the  Red  Sea,  387. 

Section  XV Dr.  M.  dismisses  the  argument  from  1  Pet.  iii.  20,  21,  on  the 

ground  that  there  was  no  immersion  of  Noah  and  his  family,  388. 
Section  XVI.— Dr.  M.'s  opinion,  that  to  lay  stress  on  rites  is  superstitious  and 

dangerous,  389. 
Section  XVII. — Conduct  of  Peter  on  Christ's  washing  his  disciples'  feet,  391. 
Section  XVIII. — Dr.  M.'s  assertion  that  the  tendency  of  the  Baptists  insisting  on 

immersion  is  to  superstition  and  abuse,  391. 
Section  XIX. — Dr.  M.'s  assertion  that  it  is  plain  from  the  history  of  the  ordi- 
nance, that  immersion  is  not  essential  to  valid  baptism,  392. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

REPLY  TO  MR.  HALL. 

Section  I. — Mr.  H.'s  opinion  that  the  mode  is  a  matter  of  indifference,  395. 

Section  n. — Observations  on  the  laws  of  interpretation,  395. 

Section  III.— Mr.  H.'s  assertion  that  the  Scriptures  represent  the  baptism  of 

the  Spirit  under  the  mode  of  pouring,  &c,  401. 
Section  IV. — Mr.  H.  disputes  Dr.  Carson's  interpretation  of  some  examples 

from  the  classics,  403. 
Section  V. — Mr.  H.  proposes  three  inquiries,  404. — Divers  baptisms, — 404. — 

Baptism  after  market,  406. 
Section  VI.— Mr.  H.  thinks  it  strange  that  Baptists  dwell  so  particularly  on 

"  much  water"  at  Enon,  while  they  find  enough  in  Jerusalem  to  baptize 

three  thousand  converts  in  a  part  of  one  day,  408. 
Section  VII. — Our  Lord's  baptism,  409. 
Section  VIII.— The  absurdity  of  Mr.  H.'s  opinion  that  Jesus  was  baptized  as  a 

priest,  410. 
Section  IX.— Difficulty  started  by  Mr.  H.  in  connexion  with  the  baptism  of  the 

Eunuch,  410. 


CONTENTS.  XIX 

Section-  X. — Rom.  vi.  1,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  p.  411. — Baptism  of  the  three  thousand, 
414. — Baptism  of  the  jailer,  414. — Baptism  of  Paul,  415 — Of  Cornelius,  416, 
Immersion  alleged  not  to  be  essential  to  valid  baptism,  416. 

Section  XI. — Mr.  Hall's  argument  from  Justin  Martyr,  417. 

Section  XII.— Mr.  H.  demands  proof  that  the  early  Christians  considered  immer- 
sion essential  to  baptism,  417. 

Section  XIII. — Mr.  H.'s  assertion  that  the  thing  and  not  the  mode  is  commanded, 
418. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

REPLY  TO  MR.  MUNRO. 

Section  I. — Mr.  M.'s  remarks  on  Dr.  Carson's  interpretation  of  Heb.  ix.  10,  p.  421. 
Section  H Mr.  M.'s  exploits  at  the  Red  Sea— his  reference  to  Exod.  xxiv.  3—8, 

&c,  421.— Pouring  out  of  the  Spirit,  422.— On  Cohii.  12,  p.  423.— Baptism 

at  Enon,  424. — Baptism  of  the  Eunuch,  425. 

CHAPTER  X. 
REPLY  TO  MR.  THORN. 

Character  of  Mr.  T.'s  work. — Splendid  criticisms !  427. 

CHAPTER  XI. 

FIRST  REPLY  TO  PRESIDENT  BEECHER. 

Section  I. — President  Beecher  attempts  to  prove  that  the  word  baptismos  does 

not  refer  at  all  to  mode,  but  signifies  purification  in  general :  Argument  from 

John  iii.  25,  &c,  429. 
Section  II.— Argument  from  Malachi,  434. — Joannes  o  Baptistes  alleged  to  signify 

John  the  Purifier,  435. 
Section  ni. — The  contrast  made  by  John  between  his  own  baptism  and  that  of 

Christ,  alleged  by  President  B.  to  establish  his  doctrine  that  baptismos  means 

purification,  436. 
Section  IV. — Argument  from  1  Cor.  xii.  13,  p.  437. — Mr.  B.'s  argument  from  the 

relation  which  the  words  baptize  and  purify  have  to  forgiveness  of  sins,  438. 

— Argument  from  Josephus,  440. 
Section  V — Argument  from  Heb.  ix.  10,  p.  442. 
Section-  VI. — Argument  from  Tobit  vi.  2,  p.  444. — Mr.  B.'s  remarks  on  the  word 

kluzo,  445. — Immersion  of  vessels,  446. 
Section  VII — Mr.  B.  presents  the  usual  objection  from  Mark  vii.  4,  and  Luke 

xi.  38,  p.  448. — Appeal  to  Mr.  Bloomfield,  449. — Rosenmiiller  on  these  pas- 
sages, 450. — Possible  sense  of  a  word,  451. 
Section  VIII. — Argument  from  Ecclesiasticus,  454. — The  case  of  Judith,  456. 


XX  CONTENTS. 

Section  IX. — President  B.'s  explanation  of  Acts  xxii.  16,  p.  461 — President  B.'s 
views  on  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  p.  462. — Reference  to  Josephus,  463. — False  axiom  of 
interpretation,  464. — Argument  from  the  usage  of  the  writers  of  Alexandrine 
Greek,  465. 

Section  X Appeal  to  the  Fathers  to  prove  that  purify  is  the  meaning  of  baptizo, 

466. — Justin  Martyr's  view  of  John  iii.  3,  p.  469 — The  ground  on  which  the 
Fathers  considered  baptism  to  be  the  means  of  regeneration,  469. — Argument 
from  Chrysostom,  471. — Argument  derived  from  Alexandrine  Greek,  473. 

Section  XI. — Facts  which  disprove  Mr.  Beecher's  theory,  475. — Passages  of 
Scripture  which  explain  baptism  as  immersion,  475. — Passages  which  imply 
that  immersion  was  the  mode  of  baptism,  476. — Passages  which  allude  to 
baptism  as  immersion,  476. 

Section  XII. — Dissertation  on  louo. — Dr.  Campbell's  distinction  between  louo  and 
nipto,  480. — Examples  from  Hesiod,  481. — From  Herodotus,  Heraclides, 

Ctesias,  Hippocrates,  482. — Homer,  483 Simonides,   ^Elian,  Nicolas  of 

Damascus,  Arrian,  485. — Josephus,  Justin  Martyr,  Eusebius,  Lucian,  486. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

SECOND  REPLY  TO  PRESIDENT  BEECHER. 

President  B.  complains  of  the  severity  of  Dr.  Carson's  attack  on  his  theory  with 
respect  to  the  meaning  of  baptizo  :  Grounds  on  which  the  charge  of  want  of 
discrimination  on  the  part  of  President  B.  is  founded,  487. — President  B.  makes 
baptismos  and  katharismos  synonymous,  487. — The  testimony  of  the  Fathers, 
488. — The  three  immersions  practised  by  the  ancients  in  the  performance  of 
the  rite,  491. — Canon  as  to  impossibility,  492. — Meaning  of  the  preposition 
eh,  493. — Meaning  of  louo,  493. — Meaning  of  klizo,  494 — President  B.'s  com- 
plaint with  regard  to  the  manifestation  of  a  bad  spirit  by  Dr.  Carson,  494. — 
Six  special  advantages  brought  forward  by  President  B.  as  recommendations 
of  the  Pzedobaptists'  mode  of  attending  to  the  ordinance,  495. 


MEMOIR 


OF 


ALEXANDER  CARSON,  LL.  D. 


MINISTER  OF  THE   GOSPEL,  IN  TUBBERMORE,  IRELAND. 


BY 


JOHN  YOUNG, 


BAPTIST   MINISTER,   OF   TRENTON,   NEW  JERSEY. 


MEMOIR 


ALEXANDER  CARSON,  LL.  D. 


Those  who  undertake  to  record  the  lives  of  literary  men,  often  com- 
plain of  a  want  of  stirring  incidents,  such  as  enliven  the  histories  of  war- 
riors and  statesmen.  The  man  of  letters  is  compelled,  by  the  very  nature 
of  his  pursuits,  to  spend  much  time  in  retirement,  and  in  labours  which, 
however  useful,  possess  but  little  interest  in  narration. 

The  beloved  individual,  of  whom  we  are  now  to  give  an  account,  was 
peculiarly  fond  of  seclusion,  and  passed  nearly  all  his  time  in  the  bosom 
of  his  own  flock,  without  ever  attemping  to  urge  his  way  into  the  bustle  of 
the  great  world.  Yet  his  life  is  by  no  means  destitute  of  important  events, 
which,  if  properly  presented,  cannot  fail  to  interest  at  least  the  christian 
reader.  He  was  a  fearless  warrior,  who  fought,  not  for  an  earthly,  but  a 
heavenly  crown ;  and  whose  victories  were  gained,  not  by  destroying,  but 
in  labouring  to  save  his  fellow  men.  He  was  a  profound  and  skilful 
statesman,  expounding  the  laws,  not  of  fleeting  human  governments,  but 
of  that  divine  and  spiritual  kingdom,  which  is  the  last  and  noblest  work 
of  the  Creator.  Shall  bloody  conquerors  have  their  annalists,  while  the 
soldiers  of  Immanuel  are  forgotten  ?  No  !  never.  The  names  and  me- 
morials of  God's  people  must  live,  when  earth's  empires  have  perished, 
and  oblivion  shall  cover  all  their  glories. 

*In  attempting  the  preparation  of  the  following  article,  the  writer  feels  that  an  apo- 
logy is  due  from  him  to  the  public.  The  lamented  death  of  Dr.  Carson,  occuring  just  as 
his  work  on  Baptism  was  about  to  be  republished  in  this  country,  seemed  to  require  that 
a  brief  sketch  of  his  life  should  accompany  it ;  in  order  that  American  readers  might 
know  something  of  the  character  of  a  man  whose  productions  they  so  highly  prize.  At 
the  request  of  the  Publication  Society,  the  writer,  with  much  diffidence,  consented  to 
perform  this  service.  He  had  no  materials  for  the  purpose  on  hand  ;  and  time  could 
not  be  afforded  him  to  procure  them  from  Ireland.  He  has  described  the  events  from 
recollection,  and  the  testimony  of  others.  He  has  aimed  to  give  a  faithful  picture.  If 
inaccuracies  should  be  found,  he  hopes  they  will  be  pardoned,  as  incidental  to  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which  he  was  placed. 

xxiii 


XXIV  MEMOIR    OF     DR.    CARSON. 

The  scene  of  Dr.  Carson's  labours,  for  a  period  of  nearly  fifty  years, 
was  Tubbermore,  a  small  town  in  the  north  of  Ireland,  containing  about 
2,000  inhabitants.  The  place  is  so  mean  in  appearance,  and  so  unim- 
portant, that  geographers  and  travellers — those  universal  describers — have 
scarcely  deigned  to  notice  it.  Its  principal  buildings  consist  of  two  meet- 
ing-houses and  a  post-office.  The  rural  scenery  around  it  is  much  dis- 
figured by  the  vicinity  of  a  large  Irish  bog,  on  one  side  of  which,  fronting 
towards  the  miry  waste,  stands  the  white-washed  cottage  of  Alexander 
Carson.  As  the  traveller  passes  from  Tubbermore  in  the  direction  of 
Deny,  his  eye  rests  only  upon  a  vast  extent  of  mountain  land,  thinly 
covered  with  stunted  heath,  over  which  he  may  toil  the  livelong  day  amid 
the  solitudes  of  nature,  uncheered  by  any  abode  of  man,  except  one 
miserable  hut  in  the  middle  of  the  wide  expanse. 

The  inhabitants  of  the  north  of  Ireland  are  a  mixed  race,  the  majority 
being  of  Scottish  origin,  whose  ancestors  fled  thither  from  prelatical  per- 
secution, because  they  could  there  enjoy  their  beloved  Presbyterianism, 
unharassed  by  the  soldiers  of  the  English  king.  Into  their  new  home 
they  carried,  not  only  their  stable  religious  principles,  but  their  sober  in- 
dustry, and  careful  attention  to  all  the  arts  of  civilized  life.  By  the  prac- 
tical application  of  the  steadiness  and  intelligence,  so  characteristic  of  the 
land  from  which  they  sprung,  the  north  of  Ireland  has  been  made  to  differ 
as  widely  from  the  rude  and  uncultured  south,  as  if  they  were  not  both 
parts  of  the  same  green  isle.  Almost  every  thing  in  this  region  is  Scot- 
tish. Three  fourths  of  the  people  are  Presbyterians ;  a  few,  consisting 
chiefly  of  the  gentry  and  their  dependants,  belong  to  the  Episcopal  or 
established  church ;  the  remainder  are  Roman  Catholics.  The  Scottish 
population  are  readily  distinguished  by  the  broad  Scotch  dialect,  which 
has  crossed  the  water,  and  still  continues  among  them ;  while  the  original 
inhabitants  are  equally  well  marked  by  their  ruddy  complexions,  sandy 
hair,  Irish  brogue,  and  strong  Roman  Catholic  superstitions.  Education 
has  made  considerable  progress  in  this  part  of  the  country ;  and  it  may 
safely  be  asserted,  that  the  working  classes,  and  especially  those  engaged 
in  agriculture,  are  much  better  instructed  and  more  intelligent,  than  the 
same  classes  in  England.  The  people  of  Tubbermore  partake  largely  of 
the  characteristics  both  of  the  north  and  west  of  Ireland.  Their  little 
village  lies  almost  upon  the  boundary  line  between  Popery  and  Protest- 
antism, where  the  two  races  and  religions  meet  and  mingle  on  somewhat 
equal  terms.  In  this  community,  some  fifty  years  ago,  Mr.  Carson  was 
settled  as  Presbyterian  minister.  His  birth  was  in  a  place  about  twelve 
miles  distant,  called  Artrae.     He  had  received  his  education  in  the  Uni- 


MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON.  XXV 

versity  of  Glasgow,  at  the  same  time  with  a  large  number  of  other  stu- 
dents, who  have  since  become  eminent  in  the  religious  world.  His 
preparatory  classical  course  was  of  the  most  thorough  kind ;  and  the 
closeness  of  his  application,  during  his  residence  at  the  University,  was 
evinced  by  his  graduating,  with  the  first  honours,  ip  a  large  class,  contain- 
ing, among  others  afterwards  distinguished,  such  men  as  Dr.  Wardlaw  of 
Glasgow,  and  Dr.  Brown  of  Langton.  It  is  remarkable,  that  his  published 
works  contain  replies  to  some  productions  of  each  of  these  his  former 
classmates. 

On  his  entrance  into  public  life,  he  speedily  manifested  that  a  solid 
foundation  had  been  laid  for  future  eminence.  Among  his  earlier  writings, 
was  a  work  on  the  figures  of  speech,  in  which  he  developed  those  self- 
evident  principles  in  the  philosophy  of  language,  by  the  aid  of  which  he 
has  since  been  able  to  clear  his  way  through  all  the  sophistries  that  had 
entangled  and  obscured  the  imagery  of  Scripture.  This  work  has  been 
regarded  as  a  standard  one  on  the  subject  of  which  it  treats. 

As  a  Presbyterian  minister,  he  was  highly  esteemed  by  his  brethren, 
and  generally  considered  one  of  the  first  minds  connected  with  that  body 
in  Ireland.  It  is  very  creditable  to  both  parties,  that,  although  he  left 
their  connection,  and  has  since  been  much  engaged  as  a  controversialist, 
dealing  heavy  blows  upon  all  who  will  not  fully  obey  the  institutions,  of 
Christ ;  yet  the  Presbyterians,  both  ministers  and  people,  still  speak  of 
him  with  the  greatest  respect  as  a  christian  of  devoted  piety,  and  award 
to  him  as  a  scholar  the  highest  rank  in  the  country.  The  writer  has  often 
heard  them  express  their  regret  that  Mr.  Carson  did  not  remain  in  their 
communion,  as  in  that  case  he  would  probably  have  been  appointed  to  the 
Professorship  of  Moral  Philosophy  in  the  Royal  College  of  Belfast,  as 
the  best  qualified  man  in  Ireland  for  that  situation. 

At  the  period  of  Mr.  Carson's  induction  into  the  christian  ministry,  re- 
ligion had  sadly  declined  in  Ireland.  The  ministers,  who  first  planted 
Presbyterianism  there,  were  men  of  burning  zeal  and  holy  devotedness. 
They  had  lost  all  for  religion,  and  for  its  sake  were  exiles  from  their  na- 
tive land.  They,  therefore,  knew  well  how  to  value  it ;  and  they  infused 
the  same  spirit  into  the  congregations  which  they  gathered.  Filled  with 
a  first  love,  those  churches  then  stood  forth  "  fair  as  the  moon,  clear  as 
the  sun,  and  terrible  as  an  army  with  banners."  Their  steps  were  free  ; 
for,  although  the  government  of  the  country  was  against  them,  still  they 
were  not  persecuted,  and  were  amenable  only  to  King  Jesus.  Courting 
not  the  smile  of  the  world,  and  fearing  not  its  frowns,  they  gave  their 
whole  hearts  to  the  work  of  the  Lord. 


XXVI  MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON. 

But,  alas  !  in  an  evil  day  for  Ireland,  Satan,  unable  to  destroy  the  men 
of  God  by  the  flood  which  he  cast  after  them,  laid  a  plan  to  entrap  them 
in  the  deceitful  snare  of  riches,  and  to  paralize  their  zeal  by  the  withering 
influence  of  secular  patronage.  The  Irish  Presbyterians  were  supposed 
to  be  unfriendly  to  th%  existing  form  of  government ;  and  cunning  states- 
men, well  instructed  by  the  prince  of  darkness,  saw  that  the  most  effectual 
way  of  gaining  them  over  to  toryism,  was  to  pension  their  clergy.  Over- 
tures were  accordingly  made  to  them  ;  and  almost  all  the  ministers  of  the 
Synod  of  Ulster  became  at  once  voluntary  stipendiaries  of  the  govern- 
ment, receiving  an  annual  gift  from  the  public  treasury,  termed  "  Regium 
Donum." 

This  device  had  the  effect  which  its  authors  intended.  The  ministers 
soon  ceased  to  bear  testimony  against  the  evils  and  corruptions  of  the  age. 
They  became  worldly-minded,  and  spent  their  time  in  cultivating  their 
fine  farms,  instead  of  faithfully  preaching  the  gospel,  and  laboriously  tend- 
ing the  vineyard  of  the  Lord.  Religion  was  soon  allowed  to  take  care 
of  itself.  Church  discipline  fell  into  neglect.  Evangelical  truth  gave  place 
to  moral  essays,  and  often  to  absolute  socinianism,  in  which  the  whole 
scheme  of  human  redemption  was  neutralized.  Regeneration,  and  holi- 
ness of  heart  and  life  were  scouted  as  unnecessary  and  fanatical.  The 
church-courts  became  arenas  for  angry  debate  between  the  Orthodox  and 
the  Arians  ;  and  true  piety  almost  abandoned  the  land.* 

At  this  juncture,  Mr.  Carson  entered  upon  the  ministerial  office  at  Tub- 
bermore.  In  the  general  disregard  of  religion  which  prevailed,  the  peo- 
ple of  his  charge  were  not  behind  their  neighbours.  Horse-races,  cock- 
fights, and  other  forms  of  sinful  diversion  .were  frequent,  and  were 
numerously  attended  even  by  professing  christians.  The  soul  of  this 
pious  servant  of  God  was  deeply  grieved.  He  knew  well  the  heaven- 
born  excellence  of  Christianity,  and  clearly  understood  what  should  be 
"  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit ;"  but  he  beheld  around  him  only  the  works  of 
the  devil.  He  rode  into  the  throng  that  crowded  the  race-course,  and 
there  saw  the  members  of  his  own  church  flying  in  every  direction  to 
escape  from  his  sight.  What  was  he  to  do  ?  He  had  preached  the  truth 
fully — had  warned  the  offenders  of  their  danger,  and  set  before  them  the 
terrors  of  the  Lord.     But  now  he  felt  that  there  was  another  step  to  be 

*  Since  the  period  here  referred  to,  the  state  of  the  Presbyterian  churches  in  Ireland 
has  greatly  improved.  The  separation  of  the  Unitarian  congregations  from  the  Synod 
of  Ulster,  and  the  introduction  of  Sunday  schools,  have  effected  a  very  delightful  re- 
formation in  that  body.  They  are  now  as  evangelical  in  doctrine,  and  as  zealous  for 
the  spread  of  the  gospel,  as  any  class  of  Presbyterians  in  the  world. 


MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON.  XXVll 

taken.     This  was  the  exercise  of  Scriptural  discipline  upon  those  who 
would  not  live  as  christians  ;  a  task  easy  in  thought,  but  which  he  found 
most  difficult  in  execution.     These  people  had  been  introduced  into  the 
church  just  eight  days  after  their  entrance  into  the  world.     They  had 
drank  in  their  religion  with  their  infant  nourishment.     They  had  been 
permitted  to  approach  the  sacramental  table  as  soon  as  they  possessed  the 
important  qualification  of  being  able  to  repeat  the  "  Shorter  Catechism." 
They  paid  the  stipend  regularly— had  their  own  pews  in  their  meeting- 
house— and  felt  that,  while  they  attended  divine  service  on  Sunday,  brought 
forward  their  children  for  baptism,  and  committed  no  gross  immorality, 
they  had  an  unquestioned  right  to  the  privileges  of  the  church,  and  ought 
not  to  be  placed  "  ex  cathedra  "  for  such  trifling  matters  as  vain  amuse- 
ments, and  a  worldly  life.     In  short,  they  held  themselves  perfectly  inde- 
pendent, and  spurned  all  the  restraints  of  discipline.  Aid  was  then  sought 
by  Mr.  Carson  from  the  higher  court,  the  Presbytery.   Here  certainly  he 
might  expect,  that  delinquents  would  be  dealt  with  according  to  their 
merits.     Here  lay  the  great  statute-book  of  the  kingdom  of  the  clergy 
— the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.     Here  also  was  the  lesser  light, 
the  "  Code  of  Discipline,"  containing  the  enactments,  partly  of  the  Bible, 
and  partly  of  the  Church,  with  all  the  legal  rules  of  proceeding  in  cases 
of  "  fama  clamosa."     And  here  were  the  Reverend,  the  Clergy,  lords  of 
God's  heritage,  ready  to  execute  the  laws.  Surely,  could  he  once  put  this 
mighty  machinery  in  motion,  his  infected  flock  must  speedily  be  purified 
from  unworthy  members.     But  no !  far  from  it.     This  vast  system  of 
church-laws  had  not  been  framed  to  regulate  the  conduct  of  a  spiritual 
body,  like  the  primitive  churches — for  whose  government  the  rules  of  the 
Bible  would  have  been  sufficient — but  to  hold  together,  in  a  state  of  reli- 
gious formalism,  the  unnatural  and  discordant  amalgam  of  saint  and  sin- 
ner, the  wheat  and  the  tares,  the  church  and  the  world.     Now  this  was 
precisely  the  condition  of  the  people  at  Tubbermore.     They  had  the 
"form  of  godliness,"  but  were  destitute  of  its  power;  and  the  legislation 
of  a  formal  church  could  supply  no  remedy. 

Abandoning  his  hope  of  church  improvement  from  the  workings  of  ec- 
clesiastical courts,  Mr.  Carson  now  gathered  around  him  all  that  had  been 
written  upon  church  government,  and  toiled  his  way  through  the  heaps  of 
rubbish  by  which  he  was  encompassed ;  until,  casting  aside  all  human 
teaching,  and  guided  only  by  the  light  of  inspiration,  his  eye  rested  on 
the  simple,  scriptural  model,  of  a  congregation  of  spiritual  men,  govern- 
ing themselves  solely  by  the  word  of  God.  Then  did  he,  for  the  first 
time,  perceive  the  real  difficulties  in  which  he  had  been  placed.     His 


XXVlll  MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON. 

church  was  composed  of  worldly  people,  whom  neither  force  nor  persua- 
sion could  bring  into  subjection  to  the  laws  of  Christ.  The  work  thus 
extended  before  him  into  one  of  awful  magnitude,  and  in  it  vain  was  the 
help  of  man.  The  building  was  to  be  laid  anew  of  lively  stones— of 
members,  fitted  by  a  renovated  nature,  to  have  place  in  the  temple  of  the 
Lord.  The  well  defined  outline  of  the  house  of  God — the  beautiful  ex- 
emplar of  New  Testament  Christianity — now  rose  before  him,  in  all  its 
harmonious  proportions,  and  radiant  with  its  first  loveliness  ;  concentrat- 
ing upon  itself  his  most  ardent  affections,  and  strengthening  his  faith,  that 
he  might  be  able  fearlessly  to  execute  the  task  of  developing  it  before  his 
fellow-men. 

One  of  his  first  objects  was  to  regain  his  religious  freedom  by  aban- 
doning the  Synod.  In  a  work  which  he  published  at  this  time,  entitled 
"  Reasons  for  leaving  the  Synod  of  Ulster,"  he  sets  down  this  as  his 
second  reason  for  taking  that  important  step.  "  I  cannot,"  he  says,  "  be 
a  member  of  the  General  Synod,  without  renouncing  my  christian  liberty, 
and  submitting  my  conscience  to  be  ruled  and  lorded  over  by  man.  I  am 
not  allowed  to  be  directed  by  my  own  conscience  in  the  service  of  my 
Master.  I  must  not  act  on  my  own  conviction  of  what  is  right  and 
wrong;  but  according  to  the  caprice  of  others;  nay,  of  those  whom  I 
esteem  the  decided  enemies  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 

In  this  production,  he  maintains,  with  great  force  of  reasoning,  the  pri- 
mitive independence  of  the  churches.  From  his  argument  on  this  point, 
we  extract  a  few  passages,  in  order  to  show  the  principles  by  which  he 
was  actuated  in  this  interesting  crisis  of  his  history. 

"  That  form  of  church  government  which  is  capable  of  the  least  abuse, 
is  the  most  likely  to  be  divine.  Now,  unquestionably,  this  is  Indepen- 
dency. If  a  particular  church  on  this  plan  degenerates,  becomes  errone- 
ous, or  indifferent,  it  has  no  power  to  injure  others,  or  draw  them  into  its 
errors.  If  all  the  independent  churches  of  a  nation  were  to  degenerate 
except  one,  that  one  cannot  be  compelled  or  overawed  to  follow  their  ex- 
ample. But  it  is  quite  contrary  with  Presbyterianism.  I  know,  indeed, 
it  is  said,  that  the  Presbyterian  system  is  better  calculated  to  prevent  error 
from  creeping  into  congregations,  by  the  power  which  the  majority  claims 
over  the  minority.  But  how  should  one  man,  or  one  congregation,  keep 
another  from  error  ?  By  compulsion,  or  persuasion  ?  I  apprehend  there 
is  no  lawful  means  for  one  church  to  keep  another  from  error,  but  by  re- 
monstrance and  exhortation.  If  these  fail,  pains,  penalties,  imprison- 
ments, confiscations,  and  death,  would  be  useless.  Force  may  make  hypo- 
crites, but  can  never  make  a  christian.     But  let  the  history  of  Synods 


MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON.  XXIX 

vouch  their  utility  and  efficiency  in  restraining  error,  and  preserving  vital 
religion.  They  may  for  a  time  preserve  orthodoxy  in  the  letter,  but  mid- 
night darkness  may  reign  with  an  orthodox  creed.  '  The  natural  man  can- 
not know  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  because  they  are  spiritually  dis- 
cerned.' Vital  religion  seems  in  a  great  measure  extinguished,  even  among 
those  who  make  the  highest  pretensions  to  orthodoxy.  A  violent,  wrathful 
spirit  of  party,  and  an  ardent  zeal  for  human  forms  and  human  creeds,  seem 
pretty  generally  substituted  for  spirituality,  and  catholic  christian  love." 

"Again,  that  form  of  church  government  which  cannot  preserve  purity 
of  doctrine  without  human  expedients,  is  not  so  likely  to  be  the  scripture 
model,  as  that  which  can  attain  and  preserve  the  highest  possible  degree 
of  vital  religion,  as  well  as  purity  of  doctrine,  without  admitting,  in  any 
instance,  the  devices  of  the  wisdom  of  man.  Now  it  is  generally  acknow- 
ledged by  Presbyterians  themselves,  that  it  is  impossible  to  maintain  uni- 
formity of  opinion  among  them,  without  a  formula,  or  Confession  of  Faith, 
to  be  publicly  recognized  by  all  the  members.  But  it  must  be  evident 
to  every  unprejudiced  person,  that  there  is  no  formula  in  the  Scriptures. 
That  constitution,  then,  which  requires  one  to  maintain  purity,  is  not 
likely  to  be  of  God." 

"Lastly,  that  form  of  church  government  which  leads  us  most  to  the 
Scriptures,  and  requires  in  church  members  the  greatest  acquaintance  with 
them,  is  the  most  likely  to  be  that  of  the  New  Testament.  Now,  with- 
out aij  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  Bible,  Independents  cannot  advance 
a  step  in  church  affairs.  I  might  speak  from  what  I  have  witnessed  of 
the  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures  among  Independents.  But  I  speak  only 
of  its  necessity,  arising  from  the  constitution  of  their  churches.  With 
them  it  is  absolutely  essential,  not  merely  in  church  rulers,  but  in  private 
members.  The  Bible  is  their  code  of  laws  ;  they  have  no  other  confes- 
sion or  book  of  discipline.  They  can  do  nothing  without  it ;  it  must  be 
continually  in  their  hands  ;  the  rulers  rule  only  by  the  word  of  God.  But 
a  man  may  be  a  Presbyterian  all  his  life,  either  pastor  or  private  member, 
with  a  very  slender  acquaintance  with  the  Bible.  A  knowledge  of  forms 
and  of  ancient  usages,  of  ecclesiastical  canons  and  books  of  discipline,  is 
the  chief  qualification  necessary  for  a  Presbyterian  judicatory." 

Influenced  by  views  such  as  these,  and  strong  in  the  conclusions  to 
which  he  had  arrived,  Mr.  Carson  threw  up  his  government  salary,  and 
removed  from  the  farm  he  had  formerly  occupied,  that  he  might  devote 
himself  more  entirely  to  his  ministerial  work.  It  was  deemed  at  the  time 
a  most  astonishing  occurrence,  that  a  man  high  in  public  favour,  of  splen- 
did talents,  and  elevated  piety,  should  abandon  a  church  in  what  was 


XXX  MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON. 

called  the  zenith  of  its  glory,  to  take  up  his  abode  with  poverty  and  con- 
tempt. Little  could  the  people  comprehend  the  power  of  christian  prin- 
ciple by  which  he  was  impelled.  Hence  they  concluded  with  respect  to 
him,  as  Festus  did  concerning  Paul,  that  "much  learning  had  made  him 
mad;"  and  his  presumed  insanity  was  received  by  many,  as  the  only 
rational  explanation  of  a  course  of  conduct  so  far  above  the  wisdom  of 
this  world.  He  was  then  married,  and  had  a  rising  family.  His  wife 
was  the  daughter  of  a  Mr.  Leidly,  a  linen-bleacher  of  wealth  and  respect- 
ability, residing  in  the  same  county.  On  hearing  the  sad  tale  of  the  heresy 
of  his  son-in-law,  Mr.  Leidly  immediately  visited  him,  and  spent  a  long 
time  in  endeavouring  to  persuade  him  to  return  to  the  Synod.  Tired  of 
his  importunities,  and  well  knowing  what  would  be  the  result,  Mr.  Car- 
son told  him  that  he  would  leave  the  whole  matter  to  the  decision  of  his 
wife.  With  renewed  hope  the  father  betook  himself  to  his  daughter ; 
placed  before  her  the  good  that  might  be  done,  and  the  comforts  which 
they  might  enjoy,  by  retracing  their  steps ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  set 
forth,  in  gloomy  colours,  the  poverty  into  which  they  would  be  thrown 
by  continuing  in  their  present  position ;  declaring  the  firm  determination 
to  which  he  had  come,  never,  in  that  case,  to  relieve  them ;  and  assuring 
her  that  her  children  would  soon  be  starving  for  bread.  But  how  full  of 
serene  faith  and  pious  confidence  was  her  reply  !  "  Father,"  said  she, 
"  God  feeds  the  young  ravens  when  they  cry  unto  him ;  and  I  cannot 
believe,  that,  while  we  are  striving  to  do  his  will,  he  will  let  the  young 
Carsons  starve."  Thus  did  that  noble  woman  sustain  and  cheer  on  her 
husband  in  his  trying  hour,  and  forsake,  not  only  houses  and  lands,  but 
father  and  mother,  in  obedience  to  the  commands  of  Christ.  From  that 
day,  she  was  to  her  parents  as  a  stranger.  "What  a  sublime  spectacle  is 
it,  to  behold  the  christian  struggling,  by  the  sacrifice  of  all  that  earth  holds 
dear,  to  free  himself  from  the  domination  of  his  fellow  men,  and  from  the 
customs  of  the  world — not  that  he  may  enjoy  a  licentious  liberty,  and 
walk  after  the  imagination  of  his  own  heart ;  but  that  he  may  bring  his 
soul  into  more  complete  subordination  to  the  statutes  of  Heaven's  King, 
and  devote  his  life  more  unreservedly  to  the  service  of  God — that  thus 
God  may  be  "  all  in  all !" 

For  some  years  after  his  secession  from  the  General  Synod,  Mr.  Car- 
son continued  to  occupy  his  former  place  of  worship,  and  to  preach  to 
the  congregation  as  before.  But  he  had  now  embraced  a  principle  Avhich 
contained  within  it  the  germ  of  yet  further  reform.  He  had  recognized 
the  Bible  as  the  only  law-book  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ ;  and  had  taught 
those  members  of  his  church  who  still  adhered  to  his  ministry,  to  rise 


MEMOIR    OP    DR.    CARSON.  XXXI 

above  human  authority  and  human  customs  in  religion,  and  bring  all 
things  to  the  Word  and  Testimony  of  God.  It  was  by  losing  sight  of  this 
radical  principle,  that  early  Christianity  degenerated  into  Romish  supersti- 
tion. Ecclesiastical  authority  laid  the  foundation,  and  worldly  policy 
raised  the  superstructure  of  that  mass  of  abominations,  which  is  to  be 
destroyed  by  the  brightness  of  the  Lord's  coming.  The  partial  applica- 
tion of  this  principle  shook  the  Papal  hierarchy,  and  brought  forth  the 
Reformed  churches  from  its  dark  embrace.  And  it  is  to  its  full,  fearless, 
and  faithful  application  alone,  that  we  are  to  look  for  a  complete  emanci- 
pation from  the  trammels  of  will-worship,  and  from  the  various  admix- 
tures and  perversions  by  which  men  have  corrupted  the  simplicity  of  the 
Gospel.  This  use  of  the  Bible  as  the  only  law-book,  and  the  rejection 
of  ecclesiastical  authority,  carried  Mr.  Carson  and  his  congregation  to  re- 
sults, of  which,  in  the  beginning,  they  little  dreamed.  Of  such  progress, 
however,  they  are  far  from  being  solitary  examples.  The  history  of  reli- 
gions reformations  demonstrates,  that  in  all  cases  where  this  single  ele- 
mental truth  has  been  clearly  developed,  and  wisely  brought  into  exercise, 
it  has  uniformly  led  in  the  same  direction ;  and,  consequently,  has  pro- 
duced a  new  basis  of  christian  union,  differing  widely  from  any  which 
human  systems  have  ever  afforded.  In  the  Baptist  Memorial  of  July, 
1844,  we  find  an  account  of  the  rise  and  establishment  of  the  Baptist 
church  in  Sturbridge,  Massachusetts.  The  narrative  informs  us,  that,  in 
the  preaching  of  Whitfield  and  the  Tennants,  a  principle  was  held  forth 
and  inculcated,  which  led  to  conclusions  that  they  themselves  neither 
adopted  nor  contemplated.  "  They  taught  that  the  Bible,  and  the  Bible 
alone,  is  the  religion  of  Protestants.  The  consequences  of  this  position, 
however,  those  excellent  men  did  not  follow  out  in  their  full  length. 
But  others,  guided  by  the  light  which  this  sentiment  sheds  upon  the  mind, 
began  vigorously  to  inquire,  not  only  what  are  the  great  fundamental  truths 
of  Christianity,  but  also  what  are  the  ordinances  of  Christ's  house.  The 
result  was,  that  many  of  the  converts  of  those  days,  became  Baptists. 
Taking  the  Scriptures  for  their  only  guide,  they  arrived  by  a  plain  and 
direct  course  of  reasoning  at  this  result.  This  was  the  origin  of  the 
Baptist  church  in  Sturbridge.  At  first  they  believed  in  and  practised  in- 
fant sprinkling.  The  fact  that  this  is  not  an  ordinance  of  Scripture,  had 
probably  never  entered  their  minds.  But  still  the  other  principles  which 
they  had  adopted,  especially  that  of  making  the  Bible  the  supreme  arbiter 
in  religion,  prepared  the  way  for  their  giving  up  that  unscriptural  cere- 
mony." 

About  the  time  that  Mr.  Carson  left  the  Presbyterians  in  Ireland,  a 


XXXU  MEMOIR   OF    DR.    CARSON. 

mighty  movement  towards  primitive  Christianity  also  took  place  in  Scotland. 
The  Haldanes,  together  with  Wardlaw,  Ewing,  and  Innis,  had  become 
alive  to  the  unscriptural  character  of  worldly  churches  ;  and  were  busy  in 
organizing  christian  societies  upon  the  Bible  only,  with  the  sincere  deter- 
mination to  regulate  all  the  ordinances  of  Christ's  house  in  accordance  with 
the  plain  dictates  of  Revelation.  They  adopted  the  congregational  order, 
and  weekly  communion,  throughout  Scotland  ;  but  were  not  Baptists. 

In  the  year  1807,  James  Haldane,  after  having  sprinkled  an  infant,  was 
accosted  by  his  little  son,  a  child  of  six  years  old,  with  the  pertinent  ques- 
tion, "Father,  did  that  child  believe ?"  " No,"  said  the  surprised  parent, 
"  why  do  you  ask  me  such  a  question  ?"  "  Because,  father,  I  have  read 
the  whole  of  the  New  Testament,  and  I  find  that  all,  who  were  baptized, 
believed.  Did  the  child  believe  ?"  It  was  enough.  God's  simple  truth, 
which  had  been  hidden  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  was  revealed  to  the 
babe.  The  strange  question,  "  Did  the  child  believe  ?"  haunted  the  mind 
of  that  father,  until,  after  a  thorough  examination,  he  renounced  his  for- 
mer errors,  and  was  publicly  immersed.  His  brother  Robert  soon  fol- 
lowed his  example.  Whole  churches  saw  the  light  of  this  ordinance 
flashing  upon  them ;  and  thousands  of  the  most  devoted  men  of  Scotland, 
who  had  taken  the  Bible  as  their  sole  directory,  reformed  their  "  Taber- 
nacle Reformation,"  and  followed  the  Lord  fully. 

Now  it  is  certain  that  when  Mr.  Carson  withdrew  from  the  Presbyte- 
rian connection,  he  had  no  idea  of  becoming  a  Baptist.  Indeed,  several 
of  his  flock  were  before  him  in  discovering  the  fact  that  believers  only 
are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  For  when  the  question  was  first 
mooted  among  them,  and  some  became  convinced  that  infant  sprinkling 
was  never  instituted  by  Christ — although  he  did  not  attempt  to  interfere 
with  their  obedience — yet  he  took  ground  against  the  novelty ;  and,  as  he 
himself  says,  "  defended  the  citadel,  while  he  had  any  ammunition  in  the 
store-house."  But  the  mind  of  Carson  could  not  but  advance  to  right 
conclusions.  His  reasoning  powers  had  been  too  thoroughly  disciplined, 
for  insufficient  evidence  long  to  satisfy  him — especially  now,  when  the 
laws  of  the  church  could  no  more  settle  the  matter,  but  the  appeal  must 
be  made  directly  to  the  Bible.  Truth  was  his  fortune* — his  delight — his 
all ;  and  for  the  truth  of  God  he  was  ready  to  suffer  trials  even  greater 
than  had  yet  fallen  to  his  lot.  It  is  deeply  to  be  regretted  that  there  is  in 
the  religious  world  so  little  real  love  for  truth ;  or  rather,  we  should  say, 
so  little  inclination  to  enter  upon  those  inquiries  which  might  issue  in  its 
attainment.  Heathen  sages,  by  calm  and  candid  investigation,  were  able 
to  rise  far  above  the  superstitious  customs  of  their  countrymen ;  and  for 


MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON.  XXXlii 

such  scattered  rays  of  divine  light  as  fell  on  the  mind  of  a  Socrates,  were 
willing  to  lay  down  their  lives.  But  now  the  painful  fact  cannot  be  con- 
cealed, that,  while  the  glories  of  Heaven's  Revelation  are  beaming  upon 
us,  we  suffer  prejudice  to  retard  our  researches,  or  fear  of  consequences 
to  prevent  us  from  doing  our  duty.  Mr.  Carson  deserves  no  praise.  He 
only  did  what  every  christian  ought  to  do.  He  received  and  he  obeyed 
the  truth.  But  what  vast  multitudes,  with  the  truth  shining  clearly  before 
them,  refuse  to  follow  where  it  leads ! 

The  object,  moreover,  for  which  Mr.  Carson  was  striving,  could  not 
be  gained  without  the  surrender  of  infant  church-membership.  He  saw 
around  him  manifold  evidences  of  the  fearful  danger  which  resulted  to  the 
souls  of  men,  from  allowing  those,  who  had  nothing  of  Christianity  but 
the  name,  to  share  the  privileges  of  the  church  relation.  He  had  re- 
nounced the  Synod,  in  order  that  he  might  enjoy  a  purer  communion,  and 
be  guiltless  of  the  blood  of  all  men.  This  noble  purpose  led  him  directly 
to  the  inquiry,  in  what  the  qualifications  for  church-membership  consisted. 
He  perceived  that  the  house  of  God  was  designed  to  be  wholly  spiritual, 
composed  of  lively  stones  united  to  Christ,  the  living  Head.  From  that 
inspired  volume,  to  whose  teachings  he  implicitly  bowed,  he  learned,  that 
the  true  members  of  the  christian  family  were  sons,  born  not  of  blood, 
nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God — begotten 
by  him  through  the  incorruptible  seed  of  his  truth  which  abideth  forever ; 
that  faith  is  indispensable  to  a  union  with  the  body  of  Christ ;  that  faith 
cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  word  of  God;  and  that,  conse- 
quently, infants,  incapable  alike  of  hearing  and  of  believing,  and  growing 
up  with  all  the  manifestations  of  a  carnal  nature,  were  not  lawful  subjects 
for  admission  into  the  brotherhood  of  the  renewed.  Could  he  introduce 
these  unregenerate  offspring  of  Adam  into  the  church  of  Christ,  on  the 
right  of  their  natural  birth,  and  in  the  vague  anticipation  that  they  might 
afterwards  be  born  again  ?  And  if  he  did  thus  mingle  the  seed  of  men  with 
the  sons  of  God,  could  he  expect  to  guard  against  the  tendencies  in  such 
a  society  to  a  merely  formal  religion  ?"  Could  he  admit  the  children  of 
believers  to  religious  privileges  along  with  believers  themselves,  and  yet 
have  a  pure,  regenerated  church,  qualified  for  spiritual  communion  with 
its  Lord  ?  No ;  this  was  more  than  he  could  accomplish ;  and  never  will 
the  ingenuity  of  man,  with  all  its  multifarious  devices,  be  able  to  effect  it. 
It  is  impossible  !  The  very  attempt  is  an  absurdity  whose  folly  and  hope- 
lessness all  history  and  all  experience  have  conclusively  demonstrated. 

When  it  was  found  that  Mr.  Carson,  so  far  from  being  likely  to  return 
to  the  Synod,  was  proceeding  yet  further  in  his  course  of  reform,  the  hos- 

E 


XXXIV  MEMOIR    OP    DR.    CARSON. 

tility  of  the  disaffected  portion  of  his  own  church  could  no  longer  be 
restrained.  Vigorous  efforts  were  now  made  by  the  Presbyterians  to  dis- 
possess him  of  the  meeting-house.  A  party  was  organized,  whose  business 
it  should  be  to  eject  him  by  force.  While  he  was  preaching,  on  a  Lord's 
day,  to  a  large  congregation,  they  entered,  and  announced  their  intention 
of  thrusting  him  from  the  pulpit.  He  quieted  the  rising  tumult,  and  re- 
questing the  intruders  to  wait  until  the  close  of  his  discourse,  assured 
them  that  he  would  then  voluntarily  retire.  They  accepted  the  proposal, 
and  remained.  After  the  services  were  concluded,  as  he  descended  from 
the  pulpit,  and  was  passing  out,  one  of  his  deacons  lifted  the  Bible  from 
the  desk,  swung  it  upon  his  shoulder,  and  taking  up  his  march  in  the  rear 
of  his  pastor,  exclaimed,  "  let  all  who  wish  to  follow  the  Bible  come 
this  loay."  The  house  was  instantly  emptied.  A  vast  mass  congregated 
in  a  green  field  near  by  ;  and  there,  guided  by  the  Bible,  as  by  a  Sheki- 
nah  of  glory,  a  little  band,  sixteen  in  number,  partook,  with  hearts  joyful 
amid  their  tribulations,  of  the  emblems  of  their  Redeemer's  love.  This 
was  the  feeble  beginning  of  greater  things — the  chrysalis  from  which  was 
to  spring  a  glorious  gospel  church,  walking  in  the  ordinances  of  Christ 
blameless,  and  pouring  a  flood  of  light  upon  the  surrounding  region.  From 
that  period,  the  Lord  has  been  constantly  adding  unto  them  the  saved, 
insomuch  that  their  present  number  approaches  500,  although  very  many 
baptized  into  their  fellowship  have  removed  from  the  district.  They  have 
also  had  the  happiness  of  seeing  other  churches  rising  up  around  them, 
on  the  same  apostolical  model,  and,  animated  by  a  kindred  spirit,  observing 
and  promoting  a  strict  obedience  to  the  requirements  of  the  Saviour. 

After  they  had  left  their  meeting-house,  they  assembled  for  worship, 
during  summer,  in  the  open  air  ;  and  in  winter,  in  an  old  barn  kindly  lent 
them  for  the  purpose.  Thus  they  continued  to  meet,  until  the  shell  of 
their  new  house  was  erected.  We  say  the  shell,  for  their  means  enabled 
them  to  do  little  more  than  to  put  up  the  walls  and  enclose  the  building. 
For  many  years  they  occupied  that  house,  and  saw  it  crowded  by  large 
congregations,  although  only  an  earthen  floor  supported  them,  and  the  eye 
was  permitted  to  scan  the  rude  frame-work  of  a  roof  unrelieved  by  an 
ornamented  ceiling.  Latterly,  they  have  considerably  enlarged  it  to  ac- 
commodate their  increasing  numbers  ;  and  we  believe  that  the  improving 
taste  of  the  age  has  been  evinced  in  removing  some  of  its  more  glaring 
architectural  defects.  Still,  however,  the  English  visitor  is  apt  to  return 
to  his  own  more  favoured  Isle,  with  his  imagination  filled  with  strange 
pictures  of  Irish  ruralness  and  simplicity.  Yet  humble  as  that  building 
is,  that  can  be  said  of  it  which  was  never  true  of  many  a  gorgeous  cathe- 


MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON.  XXXV 

dral — that  for  many  years  a  pure  gospel  has  resounded  there  ;  and  that 
there  the  living  word  has  been  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  a  mul- 
titude of  souls,  who,  though  some  of  them  are  scattered  far  from  their 
native  village,  will  ever  remember  the  hallowed  spot  which  witnessed 
their  birth  into  an  everlasting  kingdom. 

The  situation  of  Mr.  Carson,  at  the  period  when  he  thus  went  forth 
from  his  old  connections,  was  peculiarly  trying.  His  regular  means  of 
subsistence  were  now  all  gone.  He  had  thrown  himself  upon  the  volun- 
tary offerings  of  God's  people  ;  they  were  willing  to  do  what  they  could  ; 
but  that  was  little,  as  the  more  wealthy  of  his  former  congregation  had 
remained  by  "  the  stuff."  Another  minister  was  called  to  occupy  the 
pulpit  which  he  had  vacated;  and  the  men  of  means  and  influence  soon 
rallied  around  the  standard  of  the  things  that  had  been.  For,  at  all 
times,  as  in  the  time  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  question  goes,  "  Have  any 
of  the  rulers  believed  on  him  ?"  Unfortunately  it  occurs,  that  our  little, 
petty  aristocracies  can  hardly  ever  find  their  way  to  truth,  unless  truth 
happens  first  to  find  its  way  to  popular  favour,  by  the  help  of  God  and 
the  poor.  Then,  indeed,  when  it  has  become  fashionable,  they  will 
awake  as  from  a  dream,  and  graciously  patronize  it.  Thus  did  the  re- 
spectable citizens  of  Tubbermore  abandon  in  his  difficulties  a  man  whom 
the  world  will  admire,  and  elect  to  themselves  another  christian  teacher 
who  will  scarce  ever  be  heard  of  beyond  his  own  two-mile  circle.  Nobly, 
however,  have  the  people  of  the  district  since  redeemed  their  character, 
by  flocking  around  the  banner  of  Bible  truth  which  Mr.  Carson  un- 
furled. Never  did  a  man  more  fearlessly  trust  the  promises  of  God,  and 
never  were  those  promises  more  faithfully  verified  than  in  his  case.  He 
has  at  no  time  received  from  his  people  more  than  $250,  per  annum ;  and 
for  a  long  period  subsequent  to  the  events  we  have  been  narrating,  the 
support  which  they  were  able  to  afford  him  was  far  less.  Yet  he  has 
always  lived  in  comparative  comfort ;  has  been  blessed  with  a  numerous 
family ;  has  educated  them  well ;  and  placed  them  in  respectable  situa- 
tions of  usefulness  to  themselves  and  to  society.  To  this  result,  the  ex- 
tensive sale  of  his  valuable  writings  has  no  doubt  materially  contributed. 

Mr.  Brown,  the  minister  who  was  installed  in  the  Tubbermore  church 
after  Mr.  Carson's  secession,  was  a  man  of  rather  combative  propensi- 
ties ;  and,  mistaking  his  vocation,  he  considered  himself  as  placed  in  a 
sort  of  dangerous  pass,  for  the  defence  of  the  faith  as  it  is  in  Presbyteri- 
anism.  Hence  he  has  been  frequently  engaged  in  hostile  demonstrations, 
which,  if  he  had  more  correctly  estimated   his  own  abilities,  and  the 


XXXVI  MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON. 

strength  of  his  cause,  he  would  have  studiously  avoided.  After  the  pub- 
lication of  Mr.  Carson's  work  on  "  The  Mode  and  Subjects  of  Baptism," 
an  attempt  at  reply  was  made  by  Mr.  Brown,  and  a  rejoinder  was  also 
published  by  the  author.  This  little  controversy  finally  extended  to  per- 
haps two  pamphlets  on  each  side.  In  the  present  revised  edition  of  his 
work,  Mr.  Carson  has  embodied  nearly  all  the  pamphlets  which  he  previ- 
ously issued  in  answer  to  the  criticisms  of  various  eminent  men  both  in 
Great  Britain  and  America ;  but  he  has  shown  his  sense  of  the  futility 
of  Mr.  Brown's  reviews,  by  omitting  altogether  his  refutations  of  them. 
This  Tubbermore  discussion,  although  not  worthy  of  being  handed  down 
to  posterity  in  the  following  immortal  work,  yet  served  to  convince  many 
in  that  immediate  vicinity,  that  their  previous  practice  was  not  so  capable 
of  defence  as  they  had  fondly  hoped.  The  consequence  was,  that  Mr. 
Carson's  church  began  rapidly  to  increase  ;  and  the  people,  laying  aside 
their  former  notion  of  his  insanity,  now  listened  to  him  as  one  more  com- 
petent to  expound  the  Scriptures  than  the  men  by  whom  he  was  sur- 
rounded. 

The  church  at  Tubbermore  became  Baptist  by  degrees.  Some  of  the 
members  were  baptized  before  the  pastor.  Owing,  probably,  in  part  to 
this  circumstance,  they  have  never  regarded  an  obedience  to  this  ordinance 
as  an  indispensable  condition  of  admission  to  the  Lord's  supper.  Indeed, 
they  have  carried  the  principle  of  open  communion  to  the  utmost  extent, 
by  receiving  members  into  their  body  simply  upon  evidence  of  their  con- 
version, with  but  little  inquiry  whether  they  agreed  with  them  on  the 
subject  of  Baptism,  expecting  that  whenever  they  became  convinced  of 
their  duty  to  be  immersed,  they  would  attend  to  it. 

To  the  great  majority  of  Baptists  it  will  appear,  that  this  practice,  to- 
gether with  their  open  communion,  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  ex- 
ample of  those  primitive  churches,  which,  in  other  points,  it  was  Mr. 
Carson's  delight  to  imitate ;  and  that  its  tendency  must  be  to  throw  into 
the  shade  an  ordinance  prominent  in  the  New  Testament,  and  to  dissever 
baptism  from  the  gospel  of  which  it  is  so  expressive  an  emblem.  Cer- 
tain it  is,  however,  that  Mr.  Carson  believed  this  plan  to  be  consistent 
with  the  will  of  the  Lord ;  and  this  fact,  while  it  may  seem  to  show  that 
his  views  of  gospel  order  were  not,  in  all  respects,  precise  and  clear,  is, 
at  the  same  time,  a  strong  proof  of  his  extreme  liberality  and  kindness  of 
disposition.  It  ought,  therefore,  to  bespeak  for  his  writings  a  very  favour- 
able attention  from  those  who  are  so  loud  in  their  complaints  of  the  want 
of  charity  among  Baptists.     He  was  as  charitable  as  their  hearts  could 


MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON.  XXXV11 

wish ;  and  was  ever  more  ready  to  hold  fellowship  even  with  those  Pedo- 
baptists,  who  otherwise  taught  a  pure  gospel,  than  with  such  Baptists  as 
he  might  conceive  to  have  departed  from  genuine  orthodoxy. 

He  united,  in  a  wonderful  degree,  an  enlarged  charity  with  the  holiest 
boldness  in  defence  of  truth.  In  all  the  intercourse  of  private  life,  he 
eminently  displayed  the  humility  and  gentleness  of  the  christian  charac- 
ter. Indeed,  he  seemed  simple  and  childlike  even  to  a  fault.  Yet  his 
productions  are  remarkable  for  the  boldness  and  originality  of  the  thoughts, 
the  strength  of  the  arguments,  and  the  severity  of  the  rebukes,  which  they 
contain.  Many  have  conceived  a  most  erroneous  impression  of  his  whole 
character  from  the  apparent  harshness  of  his  criticisms.  This,  however, 
arises,  in  a  great  measure,  from  a  mistake  as  to  the  origin  of  what  may 
be  called  "  the  attic  salt "  in  writing.  The  author  of  Junius  was  proba- 
bly a  very  goodnatured  man,  although  his  writings  are  fearfully  severe. 
He  knew  that  the  disease  which  he  had  to  treat,  required  a  powerful  re- 
medy ;  and  he  applied  a  caustic  one.  No  man  of  ill  temper  can  write 
keenly.  As  the  razor,  when  its  edge  becomes  ruffled,  will  not  cut  freely  ; 
so  angry  passion  weakens  the  force  of  argument,  and  prevents  criticism 
from  taking  effect.  The  man  who  would  criticise  with  vigour,  must 
possess  the  power  of  self-control  in  a  large  degree.  Coolness  will 
enable  him  to  polish  his  shafts,  and  direct  them  to  the  best  advantage. 
Anger  and  wrath  evaporate  in  abuse.  But  no  one  will  find  this  applied 
by  Mr.  Carson  to  his  opponents.  True,  he  will  not  allow  impertinent 
quibblers,  who,  to  support  the  system  of  their  own  party,  continue  still  to 
argue  against  the  clearest  demonstrations  of  Scripture,  to  pass  without  re- 
buke. And  where  is  the  ardent  lover  of  truth,  who  will  not  say  that  such 
ought  to  be  rebuked  and  made  to  retire  ashamed,  that  the  public  mind 
may  no  more  be  darkened  by  their  perversions  ?  We  frankly  confess  that 
the  more  we  read  on  the  Baptismal  controversy,  the  more  our  charity 
compels  us  to  struggle  against  the  conviction  which  forces  itself  upon  us, 
that,  on  this  subject,  it  is  not  light  that  is  most  wanted — but  religious 
honesty. 

If,  beyond  this,  it  should  still  be  supposed  that  there  are,  in  Mr.  Car- 
son's writings,  instances  of  unwarrantable  severity,  we  would  submit,  in 
alleviation,  the  national  character.  The  Irish  people  are  remarkable  for 
vigorous  conceptions  and  strong  feelings,  which  they  express  with  very 
little  attention  to  softness  and  suavity  of  language ;  and  when  this  Irish 
vehemence  is  united  with  an  ardent  love  of  truth,  and  dislike  of  subtle 
perversions,  it  may  give  to  their  publications  an  appearance  of  unkindness 
which  is  really  very  foreign  to  the  writers  themselves.     Certain  it  is,  that 


XXXV111  MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON. 

Mr.  Carson  has  been  most  favourably  known  as  a  peace-maker ;  and 
when  troubles  have  arisen  in  some  of  the  little  churches  of  Ulster,  his 
presence  and  prudent  counsels  have  generally  contributed  to  settle  their 
difficulties,  and  to  calm  their  agitations. 

As  a  preacher,  he  was  very  remarkable.  He  possessed  all  the  solid 
qualifications  of  an  orator,  without  any  of  the  pomp  and  display  usually 
attendant  upon  those  who  are  regarded  as  good  speakers.  His  manner 
was  natural  and  graceful.  His  illustrations  were  very  abundant,  but  never 
learned  or  far-fetched.  The  scenes  of  rural  life  supplied  him  with  a  rich 
fund  of  incidents  and  analogies,  that  enabled  him  to  make  truth  plain  to 
the  weakest  capacity,  and  which  told  powerfully  on  the  unsophisticated 
sympathies  of  human  nature.  His  usual  course  was,  not  to  sermonize, 
but  to  expound  the  word  of  God,  by  passing  regularly  through  its  succes- 
sive portions.  This  plan  afforded  him  full  opportunity  to  bring  out  all 
the  latent  resources  of  his  mind,  and  to  apply  his  vast  learning  to  the  im- 
portant practical  purpose  of  solving  the  various  difficulties  which  his  hear- 
ers might  encounter  in  their  reading ;  while  it  enabled  him  completely  to 
avoid  that  petty  ingenuity  which  is  too  often  exercised  in  building  a  dis- 
course upon  some  insulated  or  perverted  sentence. 

The  results  of  expository  teaching  have  always  been  of  the  most  de- 
lightful kind.  It  was  the  invariable  custom  of  Scottish  preachers,  in  for- 
mer times,  to  employ  the  forenoon  of  every  Lord's  day  in  the  exposition 
of  a  chapter.  This  they  denominated  lecturing  ;  and  so  highly  did  the 
people  value  this  exercise,  that,  in  calling  a  young  minister  to  a  parish,  the 
great  question  was,  not  how  he  could  preach,  but  how  he  could  lecture. 
Of  these  congregations,  as  compared  with  those  of  our  own  time,  we  be- 
lieve it  might  almost  be  said,  "There  were  giants  in  those  days."  The 
fact  is,  that  the  great  mass  of  professors  in  this  age,  though  evidently  dis- 
playing a  more  enlightened  and  christian  liberality  than  their  forefathers, 
are  far  behind  them  in  familiar  acquaintance  with  their  Bibles  ;  and  must, 
we  fear,  remain  so  while  the  practice  continues  of  making  preaching  con- 
sist mainly  in  uninstructive  appeals  to  feeling.  In  religion,  as  in  every 
thing  else,  the  judgment  ought  to  be  the  regulator  both  of  the  affections 
and  the  conduct.  The  great  facts  of  Bible  history  form  a  solid  foundation 
on  which  Christianity  rests,  plain  to  every  mind,  and  speaking  to  every 
heart.  The  piety  that  is  built  upon  an  intimate  knowledge  of  these,  and 
a  cordial  faith  in  them,  can  weather  all  storms  ;  while  that  which  depends 
upon  the  changing  eddies  of  human  emotion,  can  withstand  nothing,  and 
is  entirely  delusive. 

Under  the  mode  of  teaching  above  described,  the  church  over  which 


MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON.  XXXIX 

Mr.  Carson  presided  grew  exceedingly  in  scriptural  intelligence,  and  a 
comprehensive  understanding  of  divine  things.  In  this  particular,  the 
writer  regards  them  as  having  surpassed  any  christian  society  with  which 
it  has  ever  been  his  lot  to  mingle  ;  and  his  opportunities  for  observation 
have  not  been  limited  within  a  narrow  circle.  Among  them,  many  young 
men  have  been  trained  up,  who  are  now  scattered  abroad,  labouring  in 
the  gospel,  either  as  city  missionaries,  or  as  pastors  of  churches.  The 
high  state  of  intelligence  to  which  this  people  have  been  brought,  may 
also  be  partly  owing  to  the  abundant  opportunities  afforded  the  members 
for  the  exercise  and  cultivation  of  their  gifts.  It  has  generally  been  their 
custom  to  allow  such  brethren  as  were  skilled  in  the  word  of  righteous- 
ness, to  speak  to  their  fellow  men  in  the  public  assembly,  in  accordance, 
as  they  believe,  with  the  direction  of  the  Apostle.  "  Let  us  wait — him 
that  teacheth  on  teaching,  and  him  that  exhorteth  on  exhortation." 

This  practice,  it  must  be  admitted,  has  been  carried  by  the  Scotch  Bap- 
tists to  a  most  extravagant  length.  Many  of  them  have  concluded  that 
the  members  of  a  church  have  a  right  to  talk,  whether  it  be  to  the  edifi- 
cation or  the  annoyance  of  others.  As  those  least  qualified  to  speak  well, 
are  often  most  fond  of  hearing  their  own  voice,  the  custom,  when  thus 
licentiously  indulged,  has  invariably  banished  the  congregation,  and  left 
the  would-be  orator  to  address  himself  to  empty  benches.  It  has  also 
contributed  to  destroy  the  regular  ministry  which  Christ  has  instituted, 
by  leading  the  members  of  churches  to  suppose  that  it  was  better  for 
them  to  do  the  work  of  christian  teaching  by  turns,  than  to  sustain  any 
one  man  as  a  constant  preacher  of  the  gospel.  These  are  some  of  its 
abuses.  But  what  good  thing  may  not  be  abused  ?  It  must,  we  think, 
be  obvious  to  every  mind,  that  all  which  is  to  be  done  for  the  spread  of 
the  gospel  in  a  congregation,  was  never  intended  by  the  great  Head  of 
the  Church  to  be  thrown  upon  the  shoulders  of  one  man  ;  but  that  all 
the  members  of  the  body  should  bear  their  part,  each  in  his  appropriate 
sphere,  and  in  that  department  of  duty  to  which  he  is  best  adapted.  In 
this  way,  by  a  prudent  and  judicious  employment  of  the  gifts  which  God 
has  bestowed,  the  talents  of  the  church  may  be  brought  out,  and  many  a 
christian  fitted  for  usefulness,  whose  capacity  for  doing  good  might  other- 
wise have  remained  comparatively  hidden  and  unknown. 

The  congregation  at  Tubbermore  was  also  divided  into  districts ;  and 
in  each  locality  meetings  were  held,  which  were  addressed,  with  great 
effect,  by  a  band  of  brethren  who  gave  themselves  diligently  to  the  study 
of  the  Scriptures ;  and  who  were  competent,  from  their  knowledge  and 
piety,  to  act  as  preachers  in  almost  any  situation.     Thus  the  word  of  the 


Xl  MEMOIR   OF    DR.    CARSON. 

Lord  had  free  course  and  was  glorified ;  while  the  pastor  had  leisure  to 
make  full  preparation  for  his  public  duties. 

Every  Lord's  day,  for  the  last  forty  years,  has  this  church  commemo- 
rated the  Saviour's  death  by  the  breaking  of  bread,  regarding  it  as  binding 
upon  them  to  do  so,  as  often  as  the  return  of  hallowed  time  calls  them  to 
remember  his  resurrection.  This  is  a  universal  practice  amongst  all  the 
Congregational  and  Baptist  churches  both  in  Scotland  and  Ireland.  As 
authority  far  it,  they  appeal  to  Acts  xx.  7  :  "And  upon  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  when  the  disciples  came  together  to  break  bread,  Paul  preached 
unto  them."  From  this  they  infer  that  one  of  the  most  prominent  objects 
for  which  the  churches  met  on  that  day,  was  the  breaking  of  bread.  In 
their  belief  that  such  was  the  primitive  custom,  they  consider  themselves 
sustained  by  what  is  known  of  the  manner  in  which  christian  institutions 
were  observed  for  many  years  after  the  death  of  the  Apostles.  On  this 
point,  they  cite  the  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr,  who,  in  his  Second  Apo- 
logy for  Christianity,  says,  "  On  the  first  day  of  the  week  all  christians,  in 
the  cities  and  in  the  country,  are  wont  to  assemble  together,  because  it  is 
the  day  of  the  Lord's  resurrection.  They  then  read  the  sacred  writings  ; 
listen  to  an  oration  from  the  bishop ;  join  together  in  prayer ;  partake  of 
the  Lord's  supper  ;  and  close  by  a  collection  for  the  widows  and  poor." 
This  may  be  viewed  as  an  interesting  picture  of  Apostolical  order  in  its 
native  simplicity,  before  the  rude  hand  of  corruption  had  marred  its  fair 
proportions. 

The  increasing  frequency  with  which  this  ordinance  is  observed,  among 
most  evangelical  denominations,  is  a  pleasing  feature  of  the  present  day  ; 
and  we  cannot  but  regard  the  extensive  change  from  annual  communion — 
a  custom  derived  from  the  superstitions  of  Easter — to  its  monthly  cele- 
bration, as  a  cheering  approach  to  primitive  example.* 

Mr.  Carson's  church  were  accustomed  to  partake  of  the  supper  in  the 

*  Note  by  the  Committee  of  Publication. — In  admitting  this  account  of  the  pecu- 
liarities of  their  Scotch  and  Irish  brethren,  the  committee  wish  not  to  be  understood  as 
favouring  all  the  views  and  practices  described,  or  as  encouraging  their  propagation  in 
this  country.  They  believe  that  mixed  communion,  and  the  admission  of  unbaptized 
persons  to  church-fellowship,  are  in  direct  violation  of  scriptural  authority ;  that  pub- 
lic exhortation  by  laymen  in  Lord's  day  assemblies,  is  an  irregularity,  tending  to  pro- 
duce disorder,  and  many  other  evils ;  and  that  Christ  has  given  us  no  express  precept 
for  the  weekly  observance  of  the  supper — but  has  simply  required  that,  "  as  often  as  we 
do  it,  we  should  do  it  in  remembrance  of  him."  Yet  as  the  object  of  this  memoir  is 
not  to  defend  particular  points  of  doctrine  or  order,  but  only  to  sketch  the  history  of  a 
most  eminent  and  beloved  minister,  it  was  deemed  advisable  to  keep  back  none  of  the 
facts  necessary  to  throw  light  on  the  circumstances  in  which  he  was  placed,  and  the 
course  which  he  pursued. 


MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON.  Xli 

public  assembly,  during  (he  morning  service,  believing  that,  in  this  man- 
ner, they  made  it  an  instrument  of  really  showing  forth  the  Lord's  death, 
and  proclaiming,  by  visible  emblem,  the  great  facts  of  his  Gospel ;  and 
deeming  the  ordinance  far  more  lively  and  impressive  when  thus  admin- 
istered in  the  midst  of  surrounding  spectators,  than  when  observed,  as  is 
often  the  case,  in  the  general  absence  of  the  congregation. 

The  peculiarities  of  church  order  to  which  we  have  now  alluded, 
served,  for  a  long  period,  to  keep  up  a  sort  of  denominational  distinction 
between  the  churches  in  Scotland  and  the  north  of  Ireland,  and  the  Eng- 
lish Baptists.  It  was  thought  by  the  former,  that  too  little  attention  was 
paid,  on  the  part  of  the  latter,  to  the  scriptural  model  of  church  govern- 
ment ;  while,  by  the  churches  of  Scotland  especially,  a  narrow-minded 
and  unlovely  spirit  was  manifested  towards  all  who  did  not  practise  like 
themselves.  In  1840,  Dr.  Maclay  of  New  York  visited  Ireland,  spent 
some  time  in  Tubbermore,  admired  the  harmony,  doctrinal  soundness,  and 
efficiency  of  the  church,  and  was  deeply  grieved  that  minute  points  of 
difference  should  continue  to  separate  brethren,  who  ought  to  be  uniting 
their  energies  for  the  advancement  of  Zion.  On  passing  to  London,  he 
represented  the  state  of  the  Tubbermore  church  to  some  of  the  ministers 
there,  informed  them  of  the  great  liberality  of  Mr.  Carson's  disposition, 
and  advised  them  to  seek  a  plan  of  mutual  co-operation  with  him.  This 
opened  the  way  for  his  introduction  to  the  English  churches. 

For  several  years,  a  missionary  society,  sustained  and  managed  by  the 
Baptists  in  England,  had  been  labouring  to  evangelize  the  dark  portions 
of  Ireland.  Schools  were  established,  bible-readers  employed,  and  min- 
isters sent  forth  to  itinerate  among  the  destitute  population.  At  length  it 
was  determined  that  a  change  in  the  mode  of  the  society's  operations 
would  be  expedient.  Many  believed  that  some  of  the  places,  on  which 
large  sums  had  been  expended,  were  so  completely  immersed  in  Popish 
darkness,  and,  withal,  so  unimportant  as  centres  of  influence,  as  not  to 
present  the  best  points  for  missionary  effort.  The<  conclusion,  therefore, 
was,  to  occupy  in  future,  as  far  as  possible,  the  more  commanding  posi- 
tions in  that  country,  and  from  these  to  extend  their  colonies  by  degrees 
into  other  and  darker  sections.  From  this  time,  the  attention  of  the 
society  was  directed  to  the  north  of  Ireland,  which  had  been  hitherto 
overlooked ;  and  the  writer  of  this  article,  being  a  native  of  that  region, 
was  the  first  missionary  appointed  to  the  field.  The  little  churches  pre- 
viously existing  there,  seemed  to  the  society  to  present  favourable  begin- 
nings for  more  extended  labours ;  while  the  only  obstacle  in  the  way  of 
concert  with  them,  arose  from  the  little  peculiarities  of  their  church  order. 


Xlil  MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON. 

This  the  society,  with  a  liberality  much  to  be  commended,  removed,  by 
allowing  their  missionaries  to  organize  churches  upon  any  plan  which 
might  seem  to  them  and  their  people  most  in  harmony  with  Scripture. 
Thus  all  appearance  of  estrangement  is  vanishing  among  the  Baptists  of 
Ireland.  The  New  Testament  is  universally  taken  by  them  as  their  only 
guide,  and  they  endeavour  scrupulously  to  follow  its  example.  They  are 
neither  Scotch  nor  English  Baptists  distinctively,  but  catholic  christians, 
extending  their  fellowship  to  both.  The  result  of  union  in  this  instance, 
has  been  truly  an  accomplishment  of  the  dying  prayer  of  Jesus,  that  his 
followers  might  be  one,  that  the  world  might  know  that  the  Father  had 
sent  him.  Interesting  churches  are  now  rising  up  throughout  the  northern 
counties.  One  was  organized  at  Bangor,  near  Belfast,  by  the  writer, 
which  continues  to  prosper.  Another  has  been  gathered  at  Coleraine,  to 
which  a  son  of  Mr.  Carson  ministered,  until  he  was  removed  from  open- 
ing usefulness  by  an  early  death.  It  is  now  under  the  care  of  a  mis- 
sionary. In  both  these  places  convenient  houses  of  worship  have  been 
erected.  The  writings  of  Mr.  Carson  are  every  where  preparing  the  way 
for  much  wider  success  than  has  yet  been  realized.  A  Presbyterian  min- 
ister, and  two  or  three  students  for  the  ministry,  have  forsaken  the  Gene- 
ral Synod,  and  are  now  setting  forth,  not  only  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  but 
his  ordinances,  in  their  original  simplicity.  Thus,  by  the  labours  of  Mr. 
Carson,  and  the  union  effected  between  him  and  the  English  brethren,  a 
wide  and  effectual  door  has  been  opened  for  the  introduction  of  a  pure 
Gospel  into  Ireland. 

In  1840  the  degree  of  LL.  D.  was  conferred  on  Mr.  Carson  by  Bacon 
College,  in  the  State  of  Kentucky.  To  an  American  college  belongs  the 
credit  of  having  done  justice  to  a  man,  who  deserved  the  highest  honours 
which  literary  institutions  can  bestow,  but  who  was  shut  out  from  receiv- 
ing the  merited  reward  of  his  scholarship  in  his  own  country,  by  his 
faithful  adherence  to  primitive  example. 

During  the  last  three  years  of  his  life,  Mr.  Carson  was  induced  occa- 
sionally to  visit  England,  and  take  part  in  the  missionary  meetings  of 
London  and  Bristol.  He  appeared  before  the  congregations  of  the  British 
metropolis,  not  with  studied  and  artificial  eloquence,  but  in  the  most  sim- 
ple and  natural  manner,  illustrating  the  word  of  God  by  plain  allusions  to 
the  events  of  rural  life  ;  yet  enkindling  the  hearts  of  his  hearers  with  his 
own  holy  devotedness,  and  stirring  them  up  to  greater  zeal  in  the  work 
of  the  Lord. 

The  first  edition  of  his  unrivalled  Treatise  on  Baptism  having  become 
exhausted,  he  was  requested  to  enlarge  it,  and  prepare  it  anew  for  publi- 


MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON.  xliU 

cation.  The  English  churches,  with  their  accustomed  liberality,  deter- 
mined to  raise  such  a  subscription  list,  as  would  compensate  him  for  his 
arduous  researches,  and  show  their  high  estimate  of  his  character  and 
labours.  Without  any  solicitation  on  his  part,  a  numerous  list  of  sub- 
scribers was  immediately  obtained  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  ;  and  the 
American  Baptist  Publication  Society,  in  adopting  and  issuing  the  work 
in  this  country,  resolved  to  afford  its  author  a  share  of  the  profits  arising 
from  his  mental  toils. 

From  the  midst  of  these  delightful  tokens  of  the  esteem  of  his  breth- 
ren, he  has  been  suddenly  called  to  an  imperishable  reward  in  heaven. 
His  mission  is  accomplished.  His  literary  career  has  now  terminated — 
but  not  before  his  great  task  was  done.  Death  could  not  touch  him,  until  he 
had  put  the  finishing  hand  to  this  masterly  production,  in  which  his  name 
and  his  memory  shall  live  through  all  future  time.  He  who,  like  Dr. 
Carson,  has  vindicated  and  rendered  prominent  an  ordinance  of  Jesus 
Christ,  by  disentangling  it  from  the  web  of  human  sophistry  and  per- 
version, has  done  better  for  the  world,  than  if  he  had  founded  a  king- 
dom ;  and  has  reared  for  himself  a  monument  more  lasting  than  pillars  of 
marble. 

The  solemn  and  painful  circumstances  of  his  death,  we  shall  lay  before 
our  readers,  by  presenting  them  with  the  following  extracts  from  a  letter 
written  by  a  gentleman  who  was  studying  with  him,  to  Dr.  Maclay  of 
New  York. 

"Dear  Sir, 

Your  letter  of  the  5th  of  July  last  to  the  late  Dr.  Carson  lies 
before  me.  As  his  hand  is  cold  in  death,  and  his  sons  are  greatly  afflicted, 
it  devolves  on  me  to  acknowledge  your  favour. 

Knowing  that  you,  and  many  others  of  our  American  brethren,  will  be 
anxious  to  learn  when  and  how  he  died,  I  shall  endeavour  to  furnish  you 
with  a  true,  though  brief  account. 

He  went  over  to  England  in  July,  to  advocate  the  cause  of  the  Baptist 
missionary  society.  For  this  purpose,  he  travelled  through  many  parts 
of  England,  and,  I  believe,  most  of  Wales.  When  on  his  return,  about 
the  end  of  August,  he  was  waiting  in  Liverpool  for  the  sailing  of  the  Bel- 
fast steamer.  It  was  night  fall ;  and  in  taking  out  his  watch  to  ascertain 
the  hour,  he  approached  unawares  to  the  edge  of  the  dock,  and  was  im- 
mediately precipitated  into  the  water,  where  it  was  twenty-five  feet  deep. 
Providentially,  there  were  persons  near  at  the  time,  who,  with  the  aid  of 
a  ladder,  succeeded  in  rescuing  him  from  a  watery  grave.     His  shoulder 


Xliv  MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON. 

having  been  dislocated  by  the  fall,  he  had  it  set,  and  was  conveyed  on 
board  the  steamer.  During  the  passage  he  became  dangerously  ill ;  and 
though,  on  his  arrival  at  Belfast,  he  had  the  aid  of  the  physicians  there, 
together  with  that  of  his  son  and  son-in-law,  Doctors  Carson  and  Clarke 
of  Coleraine,  it  was  all  in  vain ;  he  must  go  to  his  rest,  and  receive  what 
he  often  termed  the  reward  of  grace.  On  Saturday  morning,  August  24th, 
1844,  he  departed  in  peace,  aged  68. 

His  remains  were  taken  for  interment  to  his  residence  at  Tubbermore. 
Oh,  what  tears  were  shed,  and  what  voices  of  lamentation  were  heard, 
over  the  dear  departed  warrior !  Never  was  there  such  an  exhibition  of 
sorrow  in  this  country  before.  It  would  have  pierced  the  soul  of  any  one, 
to  have  beheld  the  anguish  of  the  old  veterans  who  had  stood  by  him  for 
the  last  forty-five  years.  They  looked  for  their  captain,  but  he  was  gone  ! 
they  sought  their  general,  but  he  was  no  more !  Having  supplied  his 
pulpit,  most  of  the  time  during  his  absence,  it  became  my  painful  duty  to 
do  so  on  the  first  Lord's  day  after  his  departure  from  our  world.  But 
such  a  house  of  weeping  hearers  I  never  saw  before,  and  hope  I  never 
may  again. 

You  may  be  able,  in  some  measure,  to  calculate  the  loss  which  the 
churches  of  Christ  have  sustained,  when  I  tell  you  of  what  he  intended 
to  accomplish.  After  the  death  of  his  beloved  and  excellent  wife,  he  told 
me  that  he  never  intended  to  take  another  holyday  in  this  world.  "  I 
will,"  said  he,  "leave  them  all  for  heaven."  At  another  time,  he  said, 
"  My  head  is  full  of  books  ;  I  will  write  on  till  I  empty  myself."  One 
of  the  first  which  he  intended  to  have  given  us,  was  a  Treatise  on  the 
Atonement.  Would  that  he  had  been  spared  to  execute  it.  But  God's 
purposes  must  be  fulfilled.  The  eyes  of  all  the  Presbyterians  of  this 
country,  with  a  part  of  the  Scotch  church,  as  well  as  many  of  other  de- 
nominations, were  on  him  for  some  time,  expecting  this  work.  At  length 
he  consented  to  satisfy  their  wishes.  He  had  the  subject  thoroughly 
studied — the  plan  formed — authors  read — notes  taken — and  the  book 
itself  all  but  written.  When  lo !  he  was  not,  for  God  took  him.  He 
intended  also  to  write  a  book,  on  the  best  mode  of  teaching  the  Churches. 
He  thought  that  ministers  in  general  were  lamentably  deficient  in  this 
matter.  When  I  think  of  all  he  designed  to  do,  and  which  he  could  do  so 
well,  I  am  almost  overwhelmed  with  sorrow.  You  will  be  glad  to  learn 
that  he  has  left  a  good  deal  behind  him  yet  unpublished.  He  had  just 
completed  a  work  on  "  The  characteristic  style  of  Scripture" — show- 
ing its  purity,  simplicity,  and  sublimity,  and  contrasting  the  God  of  the 


MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON.  xlv 

Bible,  as  therein  displayed,  with  the  gods  of  the  Heathen,  as  described 
by  their  poets.  He  has  also  left  commentaries  on  the  Epistles  to  the 
Galatians,  and  to  the  Hebrews,  with  many  smaller  articles. 

How  irreparable  is  his  loss  !  How  successful  and  brilliant  has  been  his 
course  !  What  labours  has  he  undergone,  what  results  has  he  achieved, 
what  privations  and  sacrifices  has  he  endured  !  How  like  was  he  to  the 
apostles  and  primitive  disciples  !  He  preached  the  Gospel,  through  good 
report,  and  evil  report.  Nothing  could  cool  his  zeal.  Onward !  was 
ever  his  motto.  When  Christ  was  to  be  served,  his  laws  obeyed,  or 
his  truth  defended,  no  force  of  opposition  could  discourage  or  intimidate 
him.  Many  an  Alps  has  he  crossed.  His  arm  was  mighty  when  fight- 
ing the  battles  of  the  Faith. 

"  He  was  a  warrior  in  the  Christian  field, 
Who  never  saw  the  sword  he  could  not  wield." 

What  shall  I  say  of  his  assiduity  ?  For  the  last  fifty  years  or  more,  he 
was  never  known  to  be  idle  one  day.  He  laboured  hard  for  knowledge. 
What  shall  I  say  of  him  as  a  scholar  and  a  critic  ?  Viewed  in  this  light, 
he  was  far  above  either  praise  or  censure.  The  grand  peculiarity  of  his 
mind  was  critical  acumen.  He  always  saw  to  the  bottom  of  any  sub- 
ject which  he  undertook  to  handle.  The  foundations  of  his  reasonings 
were  laid,  either  in  self-evident  truths,  or  in  explicit  statements  from  the 
Holy  Scriptures  ;  while  his  honesty  of  heart  would  not  allow  him  to  de- 
viate a  single  iota  from  truth,  to  accomplish  any  sectarian  object.  What 
shall  I  say  of  him  as  a  Christian  ?  Only  this,  that  with  all  his  classical, 
philological,  and  philosophical  acquirements,  he  had  especially  learned 
the  humility  of  his  lowly  Master.  With  the  colossal  stature  of  a  giant, 
he  possessed  the  meekness  and  simplicity  of  a  child.  May  we  all  in  this 
respect  imitate  his  example.  What  shall  I  say  of  him  as  a  theologian 
and  a  minister  ?  Nothing.  Let  his  works  and  his  church  speak  for  him. 
Might  I  not  safely  challenge  the  world  to  produce  such  a  church  ?  In 
knowledge  and  understanding  of  the  Scriptures,  its  members  could  teach 
many  a  minister.  And  is  it  possible  that  such  a  man  can  ever  be  for- 
gotten ?  Never,  till  the  last  trumpet  sounds.  He  himself  once  said  of 
Luther,  "  It  requires  an  age  to  produce  a  great  man  in  some  departments." 
But  a  Carson  is  not  to  be  found  once  in  a  millenary.  Who  is  so  blind  as  not 
to  see  that  God  made  him  expressly  for  his  work  ?  Had  not  the  fire  of 
God  kindled  his  soul,  would  courage  so  romantic,  have  led  him  to  attack 
the  hosts  of  the  "  Man  of  sin,"  in  their  strongest  entrenchment?  His 
faith  was  bold  as  that  of  Jonathan,  when,  with  his  armour-bearer  alone, 
he  assailed  the  thronged  ranks  of  the  Philistines.     Of  him  may  be  said 


Xlvi  MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON. 

that  which  was  once  said  of  Robert  Hall : — "  He  is  gone,  and  has  left  the 
world  without  one  like  him." 

Yours  truly, 

G.  C.  MOORE. 

Tulbermore,  Sept.   27,   1844." 

How  mysterious  are  the  ways  of  Divine  Providence  !  It  might  natu- 
rally have  been  expected  that  this  eminent  servant  of  God,  whose  habits 
were  so  retiring,  that  he  scarcely  ever  passed  beyond  the  bounds  of  his  own 
flock,  except  at  the  imperative  call  of  duty,  would  have  been  permitted  to 
breathe  his  last  amid  the  quiet  scenes  which  he  so  fondly  loved,  and  which 
had  witnessed  his  sacrifices  and  his  toils.  And  yet,  in  a  journey  under- 
taken to  promote  the  Redeemer's  triumphs,  and  while  far  away  from  the 
spot  in  which  were  concentrated  all  the  objects  of  his  earthly  affection — 
he  is  summoned  suddenly  away,  and  borne,  as  in  a  chariot  of  fire,  to 
glory.  But  the  Christian  is  prepared  for  all  events.  At  home  or  abroad, 
in  safety  or  in  peril,  he  is  alike  enfolded  by  the  arms  of  a  faithful  God. 
Carson  dies  in  peace.  How  could  it  be  otherwise  1  He  had  eminently 
served  his  generation,  and  made  it  his  highest  joy  to  do  the  will  of  his 
Heavenly  Father.  For  Christ's  sake  he  had  suffered  the  loss  of  all  things. 
His  Lord  declares  it  is  enough — and  the  messenger  comes  quick  from  the 
celestial  realm,  to  bear  him  to  that  bright  world,  where  he  shall  rest  from 
his  labours,  and  wear  forever  the  crown  of  those  "  who  turn  many  to 
righteousness."  Well  may  it  be  the  ambition  of  every  Christian  minister 
to  die,  like  him,  on  the  field  of  battle,  flushed  with  conquest,  girded  with 
heavenly  armour,  wielding  the  sword  of  the  Spirit,  and  leaving  it  recorded 
over  his  grave,  that  his  last  work  on  earth  was  preaching  the  Gospel  of 
the  kingdom  to  perishing  men. 

The  writings  of  Dr.  Carson  are  many,  though  not  voluminous.  A  list 
of  them  will  be  found  at  the  end  of  this  volume.  It  may  be  sufficient  for 
us  to  commend  to  particular  attention  his  "  Principles  of  Biblical  Inter- 
pretation ;"  his  work  on  "Divine  Providence ;"  his  "Knowledge  of 
Jesus  the  most  excellent  of  the  Sciences  ;"  and  the  accompanying  work 
on  "Baptism.''''  These  are  not  local  or  ephemeral  productions;  but  are 
calculated  for  any  latitude,  and  destined  to  live  throughout  all  time. 

He  was  peculiarly  happy  in  his  family.  His  wife  was  truly  a  com- 
panion and  helper,  cheering  him  on  in  his  toils,  sustaining  him  in  his 
trials,  and  taking  upon  herself  the  entire  management  of  his  domestic 
concerns.  She  was  also  useful  to  him  in  his  studies,  by  finding  the  quo- 
tations he  required,  and  reading  them  while  he  wrote.  She  has  gone  to 
the  world  of  spirits  a  little  before  him.     He  was  exceedingly  careful  to 


MEMOIR    OF    DR.    CARSON.  xlvii 

train  up  his  children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  He  con- 
ducted their  education  himself,  and  experienced,  in  their  subsequent  cha- 
racter, the  literal  fulfilment  of  the  divine  promise,  that  those  who-  have 
been  early  instructed  in  the  fear  of  God,  will  not,  in  after  years,  depart 
from  it.  His  was  a  happiness  that  falls  to  the  lot  of  few  parents.  He 
lived  to  see  all  his  children,  thirteen  in  number,  converted  to  God,  and 
openly  professing  their  faith  in  Christ,  by  following  him  into  the  baptis- 
mal grave.  He  was  also  called  to  experience  the  sorrows  of  a  father,  and 
the  joys  of  a  Christian,  in  the  happy  death  of  some  of  them.  His  son, 
Dr.  Carson  of  Coleraine,  died  of  brain  fever,  just  as  he  Avas  about  to  be 
ordained  to  the  pastoral  office,  and  only  two  weeks  after  he  had  written  a 
memoir  of  his  two  sisters,  who  were  removed  within  a  short  time  of  each 
other,  by  consumption.  They  departed  in  the  triumphs  of  faith.  One 
of  them,  when  expiring,  said,  "  Father,  grieve  not  for  me.  I  am  only 
going  before."  It  was  even  so  !  Father,  mother,  son,  daughters,  have 
now  united  their  hallelujahs  before  the  throne  of  God  and  the  Lamb.  For 
such  mercy  bestowed  upon  fallen  humanity,  let  God  have  all  the  praise. 


ON  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  I. 

EXAMINATION  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ARCHBISHOP  WHATELEY  ON  THE 
SUBJECT  OF  THE  BURDEN  OF  PROOF,  WITH  A  VIEW  TO  ITS  BEARING 
ON    INFANT    BAPTISM,  EPISCOPACY,  AND    RELIGIOUS    RITES. 

I  entirely  agree  with  the  present  distinguished  Archbishop  of  Dublin, 
that,  in  the  discussion  of  any  question,  it  is  of  immense  importance  to 
ascertain  with  precision  on  which  side  lies  the  necessity  of  proof.  But 
I  utterly  disagree  with  his  Grace,  in  his  doctrine  on  this  subject.  I 
shall,  therefore,  as  the  question  of  infant  baptism  is  concerned  in  the 
decision,  devote  a  few  pages  to  the  examination  of  what  has  been 
advanced  by  this  learned  writer. 

"  It  is  a  point  of  great  importance,"  says  the  Archbishop,  "  to  decide 
in  each  case,  at  the  outset,  in  your  own  mind,  and  clearly  point  out  to 
the  hearer,  as  occasion  may  serve,  on  which  side  the  presumption  lies, 
and  to  which  belongs  the  [onus  probandi]  burden  of  proof.  For  though 
it  may  often  be  expedient  to  bring  forward  more  proofs  than  can  fairly 
be  demanded  of  you,  it  is  always  desirable,  when  this  is  the  case,  that  it 
should  be  known,  and  that  the  strength  of  the  cause  should  be  estimated 
accordingly."  This  passage  expresses  the  substance  of  what  I  have 
often  advanced,  and  what  I  have  always  practised.  Controversy  cannot 
be  skilfully  conducted  without  a  perfect  acquaintance  with  the  laws 
which  regulate  this  matter.  But  in  what  follows  this  quotation,  I  differ 
from  his  Grace  in  almost  every  step.  "  According  to  the  most  correct 
use  of  the  term,"  says  the  author,  "  a  presumption  in  favour  of  any  sup- 
position means,  not  (as  has  sometimes  been  erroneously  imagined,)  a  pre- 
ponderance of  probability  in  its  favour,  but  such  a  pre-occupation  of  the 
ground  as  implies  that  it  must  stand  good  till  some  sufficient  reason  is 
adduced  against  it ;  in  short,  that  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on  the  side 
of  him  who  would  dispute  it." 

Now  I  do  not  think  that  this  account  of  the  most  correct  use  of  the 
word  presumption,  in  the  phrase  to  which  he  refers,  is  at  all  a  just  one. 


2  THE    BURDEN    OF    PROOF. 

And  he  has  given  no  examples  from  use  to  justify  what  he  approves,  or 
to  condemn  what  he  censures.  Mere  assertion  is  no  proof;  and  nothing 
but  instances  from  the  language  can  have  a  right  to  a  hearing  on  this 
question.  In  opposition  to  his  Grace,  I  contend  that  the  phrase  "  a  pre- 
sumption in  favour  of  any  supposition,"  always  implies  that  there  is 
something  which  renders  such  supposition  probable,  previously  to  the 
examination  of  the  proof,  or  independently  of  it.  In  proof  of  this,  I 
might  allege  innumerable  examples.  "  If  one  opinion  is  universally  pre- 
valent," says  Zimmerman  on  Solitude,  "  it  amounts  to  a  presumption 
that  no  one  has  a  sentiment  of  his  own."  Does  this  imply  no  degree 
of  antecedent  probability  1 

Dr.  Johnson  assigns  as  the  strict  meaning  of  this  word,  "  an  argument 
strong,  but  not  demonstrative, — a  strong  probability."  As  an  example  he 
quotes  the  following  passage  from  Hooker  :  "  The  error  and  unsufficience 
of  their  arguments  doth  make  it,  on  the  contrary,  a  strong  presumption, 
that  God  hath  not  moved  their  hearts  to  think  such  things  as  he  hath 
not  enabled  them  to  prove."     Here  the  word  imports  probability. 

I  may  here  observe,  incidentally,  with  respect  to  the  strict  meaning 
assigned  to  this  word  by  Dr.  Johnson,  that  it  is  an  instance  of  what  I  have 
asserted  with  respect  to  the  caution  necessary  in  taking  secondary 
meanings  from  lexicons  and  dictionaries.  This  greatest  of  lexicographers 
alleges  the  passage  from  Hooker  as  using  the  word  presumption  for  a 
strong  probability.  But  the  idea  of  strength  is  not  in  the  word  presump- 
tion; the  epithet  strong  is  added  to  it, — "  a  strong  presumption." 

But  where  does  this  writer  find  any  passages  in  which  the  word 
presumption  signifies  pre-occupation  of  the  ground  ?  I  can  think  of  none 
either  in  vulgar  or  in  correct  use.  I  appeal  to  the  universal  practice  of 
the  language.  When  we  say  that  there  is  "  a  presumption  in  favour  of 
any  supposition,"  we  always  mean  that  there  is  something  which  makes 
it  probable  antecedently  to  the  consideration  of  the  direct  conclusion, — 
never  that  it  has  such  a  pre-occupation  of  the  ground,  as  casts  the  bur- 
den of  proof  on  the  side  of  him  who  would  dispute  it. 

With  respect  to  the  burden  of  proof  ,  I  shall  submit  the  following 
observations : 

First, — If  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on  one  side  of  every  question,  it  is 
self-evident  that  there  must  be  a  self-evident  principle  to  determine,  in 
every  case,  on  which  side  it  lies.  It  is  often  said,  that  controversy  has  no 
end ;  but  if  there  is  not  in  every  case  a  self-evident  principle  to  deter- 
mine on  which  side  lies  the  burden  of  proof  ,  controversy  could  have 
neither  beginning  nor  end.  Discretionary  laws  can  have  no  place, 
because  they  have  no  authority. 

Second, — Is  it  self-evident  that  pre-occupation,  which  may  be  acci- 
dental, necessarily  casts  the  burden  of  proof  on  the  other  side?  It  is 
not  self-evident.  It  is  a  mere  arbitrary  figment,  totally  destitute  of  self- 
evident  authority. 

Third, — It  is  self-evident  that  pre-occupation  of  ground  does  not  cast 
the  burden  of  proof  on  the  opposite  side,  for  this  might  establish  error 
rather  than  truth. 

Fourth, — If  proof  is  a  burden,  it  is  still  more  clearly  self-evident  that 


THE    BURDEN    OF    PROOF.  3 

there  must  be  a  self-evident  principle,  in  all  cases,  to  determine  the 
bearing  of  this  burden.  Nothing  can  be  more  absurd,  than  to  suppose 
that  a  pre-occupation,  implying  no  probability,  could  confer  such  a 
prerogative. 

Fifth, — Even  the  highest  antecedent  probability  affects  not  the  burden 
of  proof  . 

Sixth, — It  is  self-evident  that  in  every  question  the  burden  of  proof 
lies  on  the  side  of  the  affirmative.  An  affirmation  is  of  no  authority 
without  proof.  It  is  as  if  it  had  not  been  affirmed.  He  who  denies  has 
nothing  to  do  till  proof  is  advanced  on  the  other  side.  Can  he  refute 
evidence  till  it  is  advanced  ?  Does  not  his  Grace  himself  not  only  admit 
but  assert  this  when,  in  his  censure  of  those  who  do  not  avail  themselves 
of  the  privilege  of  casting  the  burden  of  proof  on  the  opposite  side, 
declares  that  in  such  a  case  there  is  "  absolutely  nothing  in  the  other 
scale  1"  If,  then,  there  is  absolutely  nothing  in  the  opposite  scale,  can 
it  be  necessary  to  fill  the  other  scale  to  outweigh  nothing  ? 

This  may  be  brought  to  the  most  decisive  test.  Let  the  combatants 
disagree  as  to  the  side  on  which  lies  the  burden  of  proof,  and  both  per- 
versely refuse  to  commence  the  encounter ;  the  person  who  affirms,  in 
every  instance,  loses  his  cause.  If  he  submits  no  arguments  in  proof, 
there  is  no  evidence  of  its  truth,  and  it  cannot  rationally  be  received. 
The  negative,  without  speaking  a  word,  has  all  it  needs :  if  nothing  is 
alleged  in  proof,  there  can  be  no  necessity  to  disprove.  This  law  of 
controversy  has  always  appeared  to  me  perfectly  self-evident ;  and  it  is  one 
of  great  importance.  For  nothing  can  be  more  true  than  what  is  asserted 
by  the  Archbishop,  on  the  importance  of  knowing  and  respecting  the  law 
with  respect  to  the  burden  of  proof.  When  a  man  engages  to  prove,  in 
a  case  in  which  proof  lies  on  his  antagonist,  he  always  injures  his  cause, 
and  in  some  cases  he  may  bring  it  unjustly  into  suspicion,  or  even 
destroy  it.  For  sometimes  the  negative  may  be  capable  of  no  other 
proof,  than  that  the  affirmative  is  not  proved ;  and  this  is  perfectly 
sufficient. 

The  burden  of  proof  must  necessarily  lie  on  the  side  that  needs  the 
proof.  This,  surely,  is  the  side  that  cannot  subsist  without  an  exhibition 
of  its  evidence.  If  one  side  remains  safe  as  long  as  the  other  proves 
nothing,  it  cannot  be  necessary  for  that  side  to  undertake  proof.  For 
if  neither  attempts  proof,  the  negative  is  proved.  If  I  assert  a  doctrine, 
I  must  prove  it ;  for  until  it  is  proved  it  can  have  no  claim  to  reception. 
Strictly  speaking,  it  exists  only  on  its  proof,  and  a  mere  affirmation  of 
it  is  only  an  existence  on  affirmation.  If  I  obstinately  refuse  proof,  I 
leave  my  doctrine  without  foundation,  and  a  simple  denial  of  it  is  suffi- 
cient. No  man  can  be  called  on  to  disprove  that  which  alleges  no  proof. 
What  is  disproof,  but  the  refutation  of  proof?  And  what  has  no  proof 
needs  no  refutation. 

It  must  be  observed,  that  though  the  burden  of  proof  always  lies  on 
him  who  holds  the  affirmative,  yet  when  he  has  alleged  his  proof,  the 
objector  is  bound  to  proof.  That  is,  the  objection  must  be  proved  before 
it  can  be  admitted  against  the  evidence.  An  objection  can  have  no 
force  till  it  is  proved.     In  fact,  till  it  is  proved  it  does  not  properly 


4  THE    BURDEN    OP    PROOF. 

exist  as  an  objection.  He  who  objects,  must  affirm  something  to  be 
inconsistent  with  that  to  which  he  objects.  If  he  refuses  to  prove,  his 
objection  ceases  to  exist.  It  is  perfectly  the  same  thing  as  if  he  did  not 
object.  If  a  man  must  prove  his  doctrine,  an  objector  must  prove  his 
objection.  Every  man  must  bear  his  own  burden.  He  who  affirms 
must  bear  the  burden  of  proving  his  affirmation :  he  who  objects  must 
bear  the  burden  of  proving  his  objection.  This  is  a  rational,  clear,  and 
self-evident  law.  Indeed,  the  very  phrase,  burden  of  proof ,  or  if  the  Latin 
is  more  edifying,  the  onus  probandi,  necessarily  refers  to  proof,  and  not 
to  refutation.  It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  burden  of  proof  should 
lie  on  him  whose  only  business  is  to  disprove.  The  burden  of  proof,  as 
to  different  things,  lies  on  both  sides  of  any  question.  The  holder  of  the 
doctrine  is  bound  to  submit  the  evidence  on  which  his  doctrine  is 
founded :  the  objector  to  the  doctrine  must  prove  anything  that  he 
alleges  as  an  objection.  Every  man  must  prove  that  which  his  cause 
requires.  If  I  do  not  prove  my  doctrine,  it  falls  :  if  my  opponent  does 
not  prove  his  objections,  they  fall.  Here  each  of  us  must  affirm,  and 
each  must  prove  what  belongs  to  himself,  but  neither  of  us  is  to  prove 
that  which  belongs  to  the  other.  How  different  is  this  law  from  the 
erroneous  principle  employed  by  this  great  logician,  to  regulate  the 
matter  in  question.  I  proceed  not  a  step  but  with  the  torch  of  self- 
evidence  in  my  hand ! 

My  view  of  this  subject  is,  I  find,  similar  to  that  taken  by  the  learned 
Lord  Chancellor  King,  in  the  following  passage  from  his  "  Enquiry  into 
the  Constitution,  Discipline,  Unity,  and  Worship  of  the  Primitive 
Church,"  p.  41.     Part  II.  1691 : 

"  Now  this  being  a  negative  in  matter  of  fact,  the  bare  assertion  of  it 
is  sufficient  proof,  except  its  affirmative  can  be  evinced.  Suppose  it  was 
disputed  whether  ever  St.  Paul  writ  an  epistle  to  the  church  of  Rome, 
the  bare  negation  thereof  would  be  proof  enough  that  he  did  not,  except 
it  could  be  clearly  evidenced  on  the  contrary  that  he  did.  So  unless 
it  can  be  proved  that  the  ancients  had  fixed  liturgies  and  prayer-books, 
we  may  very  rationally  conclude  in  the  negative,  that  they  had  none 
at  all." 

I  will  admit  the  law  which  I  here  lay  down,  to  be  equally  binding 
in  all  inquiries  after  truth.  When  I  contend  with  the  Archbishop,  I  am 
bound  to  proof:  my  opponent  has  nothing  to  do  but  to  refute  my  proof. 
He  is  bound  to  prove  all  his  objections ;  and  a  merely  possible  solution 
of  a  difficulty  is  sufficient  to  refute  the  objection.  So  also  with  respect 
to  every  doctrine,  and  every  institution  that  pretends  authority  from  the 
word  of  God.  There  is  another  observation  of  great  importance  on 
this  subject.  The  procedure  is  the  same  with  respect  to  every  indivi- 
dual, were  there  no  one  in  the  world  to  dispute  with  him.  I  believe  it 
is  very  generally  supposed  that  a  man  may  safely  retain  such  institu- 
tions as  he  believes  to  have  the  privilege  of  casting  the  burden  of  proof 
on  the  side  of  those  who  dispute  them,  till  he  is  forced  by  his  opponents. 
This  is  a  monstrous  mistake.  Were  there  no  one  to  dispute  with  us 
about  any  of  our  doctrines  or  ordinances,  we  are  equally  bound  to  the 
proof  of  what  we  receive.     And  in  considering  objections,  we  are  to 


THE    BURDEN    OF    PROOF.  5 

admit  none  that  are  not  proved.  We  are  fairly  to  act  the  part  of  both 
parties.     In  this  way  only  can  we  legitimately  expect  to  arrive  at  truth. 

The  Archbishop  refers  to  the  procedure  at  law  for  a  confirmation  of 
his  doctrine.  "  Thus,"  says  he,  "  it  is  a  well  known  principle  of  the  law, 
that  every  man  (including  a  prisoner  brought  up  for  trial,)  is  to  be  pre- 
sumed innocent  till  his  guilt  is  established.  This  does  not,  of  course, 
mean  that  we  are  to  take  for  granted  he  is  innocent;  for  if  that  were  the 
case,  he  would  be  entitled  to  immediate  liberation :  nor  does  it  mean  that 
it  is  antecedently  more  likely  than  not  that  he  is  innocent." 

Upon  this  I  observe;  First,  though  his  Grace  is  the  first  logician  of  the 
age,  he  here  confounds  two  distinct  meanings  of  the  word  in  question, 
and  considers  them  as  one.  When  it  is  said  that  a  prisoner  is  to  be 
presumed  innocent  till  he  is  proved  guilty,  the  word  presumed  signifies 
supposed,  considered,  treated  in  laic:  that  is,  he  is  not  to  be  legally 
judged  as  guilty,  till  his  guilt  is  established.  In  fact,  neither  guilt  nor 
innocence  is  properly  presumed.  If  innocence  is  presumed,  it  must  be 
on  account  of  something  that  makes  guilt  unlikely :  if  guilt  is  presumed, 
it  must  be  from  something  that  makes  guilt  more  likely  than  innocence. 
The  law  anticipates  nothing  as  to  his  guilt  or  innocence;  it  pronounces 
no  judgment  till  it  hears  the  proof. 

But  the  word  presumption  in  the  phrase,  "  a  presumption  in  favor  of 
any  supposition,"  has  a  very  different  meaning,  both  in  common  use, 
and  according  to  his  Grace's  definition  of  it.  Accordingly,  while  the 
prisoner  is  to  be  legally  considered  innocent,  there  may  be  the  strongest 
presumption  that  he  is  guilty.  He  cannot,  then,  in  the  same  sense,  be 
presumed  both  innocent  and  guilty.  Besides,  the  prisoner's  being  le- 
gally considered  as  innocent,  till  he  is  proved  guilty,  is  never  designated 
as  "  a  presumption  in  favor  of  the  innocence  of  the  prisoner."  There 
is  not,  then,  even  a  legal  use  of  the  phrase,  in  his  Grace's  sense.  In 
any  case  in  which  it  is  said  that  there  is  "  a  presumption  in  favor  of  the 
prisoner,"  it  will  be  understood  by  both  learned  and  unlearned,  both  by 
the  court  and  by  the  crowd,  that  there  is  something  that  renders  inno- 
cence probable. 

Second, — His  Grace  here  confounds  a  law  regulating  those  who  judge 
in  civil  matters  for  others,  with  a  law  that  respects  every  individual  in 
regulating  himself,  as  to  his  views  of  divine  things.  A  jury,  whatever 
may  be  their  opinion,  are  not  to  find  a  man  guilty,  but  on  evidence  sub- 
mitted in  court;  but  the  prisoner  himself  is  not  to  form  his  judgment 
by  this  standard. 

Third, — The  prisoner  is  to  be  legally  considered  innocent,  till  he  is 
proved  guilty,  but  this  is  not  from  a  pre-occupation  of  the  ground. 
There  is  nothing  here  that  can  be  like  pre-occupation. 

Fourth, — The  treatment  of  the  prisoner  is  grounded  on  self-evident 
truths.  If  he  did  not  commit  the  crime,  he  is  actually  innocent  of  it ; 
and  if  it  is  not  proved  that  he  committed  it,  he  is  legally  innocent  of  it. 
If  there  is  no  proof  of  guilt,  why  should  he  be  accounted  guilty?  Here 
the  burden  of  proof  is  regulated  by  the  same  self-evident  principle.  The 
accuser  must  affirm  and  prove  his  affirmation.  If  he  refuses,  the  charge 
falls.     It  is  the  accuser  who  needs  the  proof.     The  want  of  proof  of 


6  THE    BURDEN    OF    PROOF. 

guilt,  is  legal  proof  of  innocence.  If  there  is  no  affirmation  of  guilt, 
there  is  no  pretence  for  trial :  if  the  affirmation  of  guilt  is  not  proved, 
there  can  be  no  legal  conviction.  All  this  is  in  perfect  harmony  with 
my  doctrine. 

The  author  next  gives  an  example  from  possession  as  to  property. 
"  Thus  again,"  says  he,  "  there  is  a  presumption  in  favor  of  the  right 
of  any  individuals  or  bodies  corporate  to  the  property  of  which  they  are 
in  actual  possession.  This  does  not  mean  that  they  are,  or  are  not, 
likely  to  be  the  rightful  owners;  but  merely  that  no  man  is  to  be  dis- 
turbed in  his  possessions  till  some  claim  against  him  shall  be  established." 

On  this  I  observe,  First, — It  is  true  that  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on 
him  who  disputes  the  right  of  the  present  possessor ;  but  it  is  not  true 
that  this  is  called  a  "presumption  in  his  favor."  It  is  true,  also,  gen- 
erally speaking,  that  there  is  a  presumption  in  favor  of  the  possessor ; 
but  the  sense  in  which  this  assertion  will  be  generally  admitted,  is  not 
the  sense  in  which  it  is  defined  by  the  writer,  but  the  sense  which  he 
disclaims.  It  will  universally  be  understood  to  mean  some  degree  of 
probability  that  the  possessor  is  the  rightful  owner  of  the  property.  It 
is  never  employed  to  designate  merely  that  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on 
the  side  of  him  who  disputes  the  right  of  the  possessor. 

Second, — The  principle  on  which  the  law  proving  possession  as  to 
property,  must  undoubtedly  be  founded  on  an  opinion  of  previous  pro- 
bability, otherwise  it  would  be  most  unjust  and  absurd. 

Third, — There  is  actually  an  antecedent  probability  on  the  side  of 
possession  as  to  property.  There  are  a  million  of  cases  against  one,  in 
which  the  possessor  is  the  legal  owner.  The  law,  then,  is  founded  on 
self-evident  truth.  There  is  the  soundest  reason  directing  the  proce- 
dure of  the  law  in  this  instance. 

Fourth, — To  put  the  proof  on  the  possessor  would  unhinge  property, 
and  be  most  evidently  unjust.  Many  rightful  possessors  might  not  be 
able  to  give  any  other  evidence  of  their  right  than  possession.  But  with 
respect  to  religious  doctrines  and  institutions,  there  is  no  antecedent 
probability  that  those  in  existence  at  any  time  are  actually  in  Scripture. 
The  vast  majority  of  religious  rites  used  under  the  Christian  name  are 
the  mere  invention  of  men ;  and  not  a  single  institution  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
as  it  is  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  has  been  left  unchanged ;  and 
it  is  no  injustice  to  put  each  of  them  to  the  proof,  because,  if  they  are 
in  Scripture,  proof  is  at  all  times  accessible.  There  is  no  similarity 
between  religious  ordinances  and  property.  As  to  a  man's  right  to  re- 
tain his  faith  and  practice,  it  not  only  continues  till  his  doctrine  and 
rites  are  disproved  by  Scripture,  but  equally  after  this  as  before  it.  He 
is  to  be  left  in  the  undisturbed  possession  of  his  religion  after  the  clear- 
est demonstration  of  its  falsehood  and  its  absurdity. 

Fifth, — The  civil  law  actually  establishes  the  procedure  as  to  posses- 
sion in  property :  the  Scriptures  nowhere  recognise  the  claims  of  posses- 
sion as  to  doctrines  or  institutions. 

His  Grace,  after  some  very  just  and  appropriate  observations  on  the 
importance  of  deciding  on  which  side  lies  the  burden  of  proof,  and  hav- 
ing illustrated  them  with  suitable  examples,  speaks  of  him  who  neglects 


THE    BURDEN    OF    PROOF.  7 

it  as  leaving  out  "  one,  perhaps,  of  his  strongest  arguments.'1  Now  how 
does  this  consist  with  the  assertion,  that  the  presumption  referred  to  im- 
plies not  a  previous  probability  1  Can  anything  be  an  argument  which 
has  no  evidence  ?  If  there  is  no  evidence  in  this  presumption,  what 
gives  it  so  much  weight? 

"  The  following,"  says  the  author,  "are  a  few  of  the  cases  in  which  it 
is  important,  though  very  easy,  to  point  out  where  the  presumption  lies. 

"  There  is  a  presumption  in  favour  of  any  existing  institution.  Many 
of  these  (we  will  suppose  the  majority)  may  be  susceptible  of  alteration 
for  the  better ;  but  still  the  '  burden  of  proof  lies  with  him  who  propo- 
ses an  alteration ;  simply  on  the  ground  that,  since  a  change  is  not  a 
good  in  itself,  he  who  demands  a  change  should  show  cause  for  it." 

With  respect  to  civil  institutions,  there  is,  in  the  common  sense  of  the 
term,  a  presumption  that  they  were  agreeable  to  the  wisdom  of  the  le- 
gislature when  they  were  enacted.  There  can  be  no  reason  to  alter  them, 
except  they  can  be  improved.  But  even  with  respect  to  a  civil  law,  the 
moment  that  the  legislature  consents  to  bring  it  into  discussion,  it  must 
prove  its  utility  or  perish :  proof  of  this  lies  on  its  friends.  It  is  self- 
evident  that  the  advocates  of  a  law  must  show  the  arguments  that  sup- 
port it.  If  these  are  refuted,  it  perishes  without  further  assault.  If  it 
is  a  useless  law,  why  should  it  be  law? 

But  with  respect  to  existing  religious  institutions,  there  is  no  pre- 
sumption in  their  favour,  in  any  sense  of  the  term.  Their  present  exist- 
ence is  a  presumption  that  they  were  agreeable  to  the  wisdom  of  the 
institutor,  but  not  that  they  are  of  Divine  origin.  He  who  holds  them 
must  prove  them.  He  who  assails  them  has  only  to  refute  what  is  al- 
leged from  Scripture  in  their  support.  The  question  is  not  whether  the 
institution  is  useful  or  injurious,  but  whether  it  is  founded  in  Scripture. 
Had  an  institution  existed  from  the  time  of  Noah,  it  has  not  the  small- 
est authority  from  its  age.  It  must  prove  its  origin  to  be  from  God. 
"  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony :  if  they  speak  not  according  to  this 
word,  it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in  them." 

"Every  book  again,  as  well  as  person,"  says  the  author,  "ought  to  be 
presumed  harmless  (and,  consequently,  the  copyright  protected  by  our 
courts,)  till  something  is  proved  against  it.  It  is  a  hardship  to  require 
a  man  to  prove,  either  of  his  book  or  of  his  private  life,  that  there  is  no 
ground  for  any  accusation ;  or  else  to  be  denied  the  protection  of  his 
country.     The  burden  of  proof  in  each  case,  lies  fairly  on  the  accuser." 

"  The  burden  of  proof,  in  the  cases  referred  to,  certainly  rests  justly, 
as  his  Grace  determines ;  but  not  from  a  presumption  of  innocence,  nor 
from  a  pre-occupation  of  the  ground,  but  from  self-evident  truth.  No- 
thing could  be  more  self-evidently  unjust  than  to  oblige  a  man  to  prove 
his  own  innocence.  He  might  be  innocent,  yet  quite  unable  to  prove 
it.  What  other  proof  could  he  justly  be  called  on  to  give  of  his  inno- 
cence of  a  crime,  but  that  there  is  no  evidence  he  did  it  ?  In  some 
cases  he  is  able  to  do  more,  as  when  he  proves  an  alibi;  but  more  is 
not  necessary.  If  he  is  not  proved  guilty,  he  is  innocent  of  course. 
His  accuser,  then,  must  affirm  guilt,  and  prove  it. 

And  how  could  he  prove  that  his  book  is  innocent,  but  by  denying 


8  THE    BURDEN    OF    PROOF. 

that  it  is  guilty,  and  challenging  his  opponent  to  proof?  Instead  of 
going  over  every  sentence,  and  showing  that  it  is  innocent,  he  challenges 
his  adversary  to  prove  gudt  in  any  sentence.  If  all  this  proceeds  on  the 
foundation  of  self-evident  truth,  why  lodge  it  on  the  slippery  ground 
of  presumption  of  innocence,  and  pre-occupation  ?  It  is  an  abuse  of 
terms. 

"  There  is  a  presumption,"  says  his  Grace,  "  against  every  thingpara- 
doxical,  i.  e.,  contrary  to  the  prevailing  opinion:  it  may  be  true;  but 
the  burden  of  proof  lies  with  him  who  maintains  it ;  since  men  are  not  to 
be  expected  to  abandon  the  prevailing  belief  till  some  reason  is  shown." 

The  burden  of  proof  lies  indeed  with  him  who  holds  anything  contrary 
to  the  prevailing  opinion;  but  not  more  so  than  with  him  who  holds 
what  is  in  accordance  with  the  prevailing  opinion.  Every  opinion  is  to  be 
supported  by  the  holders  of  it,  with  the  arguments  on  which  it  rests ; 
and  the  business  of  him  who  rejects  it  is  to  disprove  these  arguments. 
If  a  man  is  not  to  be  expected  to  abandon  the  prevailing  belief  till  some 
reason  is  shown,  neither  is  he  rationally  to  be  expected  to  adopt  or  re- 
tain the  prevailing  belief  till  he  has  a  reason  that  convinces  himself, 
though  he  is  not  bound  to  convince  others.  As  to  the  burden  of  proof, 
there  is  not  the  slightest  difference  between  the  wildest  singularity  and 
the  most  prevailing  faith.  Every  thing  that  claims  belief  must  submit 
its  evidence,  else  it  cannot  be  rationally  received.  Every  thing  believed 
must  rest  on  evidence,  else  it  cannot  be  rationally  retained.  The  bur- 
den of  proof  lies  necessarily  on  the  side  of  the  opinion  believed :  the 
burden  of  disproof,  or  of  showing  that  the  arguments  alleged  in  proof 
do  not  prove,  lies  on  the  other  side.    Each  side  has  its  own  peculiar  proof. 

It  is  not  only  a  fantastic,  but  an  absurd  and  pernicious  principle,  that 
relieves  the  prevailing  faith  of  the  burden  of  proof.  If  it  is  the  prevail- 
ing opinion  that  the  Man  of  the  Moon  has  a  beard  down  to  his  knees, 
am  I  obliged  to  make  an  expedition  to  that  planet  to  determine  the 
question  by  actual  measurement  ?  Proof  lies  on  the  opinion,  not  on  its 
opposers.  Besides,  the  very  fact  that  his  Grace  gives  a  reason  why  men 
should  not  be  expected  to  abandon  the  prevailing  belief  till  some  reason 
is  shown,  destroys  his  doctrine :  for,  if  he  gives  a  reason,  then  he  rests 
not  on  a  mere  pre-occupation  without  evidence. 

Again,  if  mere  pre-occupation  determines  the  burden  of  proof,  then 
the  holder  of  the  most  singular  opinion  should  not  give  it  up  till  some 
reason  is  shown  ;  that  is,  he  may  cast  the  burden  of  proof  on  the  side  of 
the  prevailing  opinion,  for  the  singular  opinion  has  pre-occupation  in 
regard  to  him. 

Still  further,  if  the  prevailing  opinion  enjoys  this  prerogative,  it  will, 
in  many  cases,  be  a  contest  which  is  the  prevailing  opinion.  The  doc- 
trine of  his  Grace,  on  the  burden  of  proof,  is  perfectly  absurd. 

I  have  another  observation.  His  Grace  says  :  "There  is  a  presump- 
tion against  every  thing  paradoxical."  Now  I  ask  every  reader,  what  is 
the  sense  that  the  English  language  naturally  assigns  to  the  word  pre- 
sumption in  this  sentence?  Is  it  not  a  degree  of  antecedent  probability  ? 
But  this  is  not  his  Grace's  meaning.  He  means  merely  that  the  burden 
of  proof  lies  with  him  who  holds  the  paradox,  without  expressing  any 


THE    BURDEN    OF    PROOF.  9 

opinion  of  probability.  If  my  observation  is  just,  his  Grace  has  unne- 
cessarily chosen  to  express  himself  in  phraseology  that  is  not  English  in 
the  sense  in  which  he  uses  it.     The  expression  is  paradoxical. 

If  it  were  not  foreign  to  the  present  controversy,  I  would  dispute  his 
Grace's  application  of  the  word  paradoxical.  He  says,  "  Correct  use  is 
in  favour  of  the  etymological  sense.  It  is  my  opinion,  that  correct 
English  never  uses  the  word  for  what  is  merely  contrary  to  the  prevail- 
ing belief.  Indeed  in  this  respect  there  is  no  difference  between  vulgar 
and  classical  usage.  The  word  is  never  used,  either  by  scholars  or  the 
exact,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  explained  by  this  writer.  In  its  best 
sense,  it  always  implies  something  at  first  sight  incredible,  or  apparently 
false,  or  contradictory, — never  simply  that  a  thing  is  contrary  to  the 
prevailing  belief.  It  is  said,  that  his  Grace  has  an  opinion  on  the 
sabbath,  contrary  to  the  prevailing  belief;  but  I  should  consider  it  calum- 
nious, to  assert  that  he  holds  a  paradoxical  opinion  with  regard  to  the 
sabbath.  The  most  singular  opinions  are  not  paradoxical,  simply  from 
their  singularity;  I  know,  indeed,  that  one  of  the  meanings  assigned  to 
this  word  by  Dr.  Johnson,  coincides  with  that  given  by  his  Grace ;  but 
he  has  given  no  example  for  proof;  and  he  gives  the  others  which  this 
writer  denies.  Paradox,  Dr.  Johnson  explains  as  "  a  tenet  contrary  to 
received  opinion ;  an  assertion  contrary  to  appearance ;  a  position  in 
appearance  absurd."  From  correct  use,  he  exemplifies  all  but  the  first : 
that  he  does  not  exemplify,  and  I  cannot  think  of  an  example  in  the 
English  language.  It  is  given  merely  on  the  authority  of  etymology, 
which  is  no  authority  at  all.  Mere  contrariety  to  the  prevailing  opinion, 
is  not  a  paradox  in  the  sense  of  the  English  language.  This  is  another 
proof  of  the  necessity  of  caution  in  using  the  authority  of  lexicons.  If 
Dr.  Johnson  is  guilty  of  such  an  inaccuracy  in  the  account  of  the  mean- 
ing of  an  English  word,  what  may  we  not  fear  from  lexicographers  in 
dead  or  foreign  languages?  Nothing  but  examples  from  a  language  can 
be  ultimate  proof  of  the  meaning  of  words.  The  authority  of  lexico- 
graphers and  critics  is  only  secondary. 

"Accordingly,"  says  his  Grace,  "  there  was  a  presumption  against 
the  Gospel  in  its  first  announcement."  In  the  English  sense  of  the  term, 
there  was  no  presumption  against  the  Gospel  on  its  first  announcement. 
But  I  admit  that  proof  lay  on  that  side.  This,  however,  is  not  from  any 
pre-occupation  of  ground  on  the  other  side;  it  was  on  the  common,  self- 
evident  principle,  that  every  doctrine  or  opinion  must  show  its  proof, 
else  it  must  cease  to  have  a  rational  existence.  He  who  denies  it  has 
nothing  to  do  but  refute  what  is  alleged  in  its  favour.  This  holds  uni- 
versally. Indeed,  his  Grace  himself  rests  his  assertion  on  the  nature  of 
the  thing,  and  the  self-evidence  of  the  case,  not  on  pre-occupation.  "  A 
Jewish  peasant,"  says  he,  "  claimed  to  be  the  promised  Deliverer,  in  whom 
all  the  nations  of  the  earth  were  to  be  blessed.  The  burden  of  proof 
lay  with  Him.  No  one  could  be  fairly  called  on  to  admit  his  preten- 
sions till  He  showed  cause  for  believing  in  Him."  Here  the  author  does 
not  rest  on  the  authority  of  an  arbitrary  principle,  but  gives  a  reason  for 
his  assertion.  And  if  it  is  true,  that  "  no  one  could  be  fairly  called  on  to 
admit  his  pretensions  till  He  showed  cause  for  believing  on  him,"  it  is  on 

2 


10  THE    BURDEN    OF    PROOF. 

the  same  ground,  then,  that  no  one  can  be  fairly  called  on  to  believe 
anything  till  evidence  is  presented. 

" Noiv,"  continues  the  writer,  "the  case  is  reversed.  Christianity 
exists  :  and  those  who  deny  the  Divine  origin  attributed  to  it,  are  bound 
to  show  some  reasons  for  assigning  to  it  a  human  origin." 

This  indeed  is  a  most  chimerical  principle.  The  same  doctrine  is  at 
one  time  bound  to  proof,  at  another  it  has  the  privilege  of  casting  the 
burden  of  proof  on  the  other  side ;  from  the  mere  circumstance  of  exis- 
tence. Nothing  can  be  more  absurd.  If  at  first  it  is  bound  to  proof, 
but  as  soon  as  it  is  received,  it  can  cast  the  burden  of  proof  on  the  other 
side,  its  reception  must  be  evidence  of  its  truth,  or  the  ground  of  its 
reception  is  irrational  and  insufficient.  Now  the  presumption  for  which 
his  Grace  contends,  is  not  of  the  nature  of  evidence  at  all. 

This  doctrine  is  utterly  without  foundation.  Christianity  is  as  much 
bound  to  proof  this  day,  as  it  was  the  first  day  of  its  publication.  Its 
opponents  are  not  "  bound  to  show  some  reasons  for  assigning  to  it  a  human 
origin."  If  they  refute  the  arguments  on  which  Christianity  rests,  they 
have  done  their  business.  The  establishment  of  Christianity  considered 
in  connexion  with  its  nature  and  means  of  propagation,  is  indeed  evi- 
dence of  its  truth,  but  no  reason  to  cast  the  burden  of  proof  on  its  enemies. 

On  what  does  such  an  arbitrary  principle  rest  ?  Do  the  Scriptures 
teach  that  as  soon  as  any  doctrine  or  position  is  established,  or  received, 
proof  lies  on  the  side  of  those  who  dispute  it?  No  such  thing  is  pre- 
tended. Is  it  a  self-evident  truth?  Instead  of  this,  the  author  himself 
denies  this  presumption  to  be  even  a  previous  probability.  Every  ulti- 
mate reason  must  be  self-evident.  But  here  we  have  an  ultimate  reason 
that  has  not  even  the  nature  of  evidence. 

His  Grace  rests  on  the  simple  existence  of  Christianity.  But  did  not 
Christianity  exist  from  the  first  day  of  its  reception  by  the  first  individual 
who  received  it?  According  to  this  doctrine,  then,  with  respect  to  all 
who  from  the  first  moment  received  it,  proof  lay  on  the  other  side.  Be- 
sides, with  respect  to  infidels  and  all  who  have  not  received  Christianity, 
proof  must  still  lie  on  it.  They  must  not  give  up  their  old  systems  till 
proof  is  submitted.  There  is  nothing  but  concessions  on  this  principle 
of  settling  the  burden  of  proof.  Christianity  on  the  ground  of  its  existence 
rests  the  burden  of  proof  on  those  who  dispute  it ;  yet  all  who  dispute  it 
have  the  same  reason  to  cast  the  burden  of  proof  upon  it.  Their  belief 
had,  with  respect  to  themselves,  a  previous  existence.  If  each  has  a 
right  to  cast  the  burden  of  proof  upon  the  other,  they  never  can  contend. 

The  author  himself  forsakes  his  own  principle,  and  in  the  following 
passage,  gives  a  reason  why  the  burden  of  proof  should  now  lie  on  the 
opposers  of  Christianity.  "  The  burden  of  proof,"  says  he,  "  now  lies 
plainly  on  him  who  rejects  the  Gospel ;  which,  if  it  were  not  established 
by  miracles,  demands  an  explanation  of  the  greater  miracle,  its  having 
been  established  in  defiance  of  all  opposition,  by  human  contrivance." 
Here  instead  of  relying  on  simple  existence,  he  relies  on  miraculous 
propagation,  in  defiance  of  all  opposition.  This  indeed  is  an  argument 
in  proof  of  the  truth  of  Christianity — not  a  reason  to  relieve  it  from  the 
burden  of  proof. 


THE    BURDEN    OF    PROOF.  11 

"  The  burden  of  proof,  again,"  says  the  Archbishop,  "  lay  on  the 
authors  of  the  Reformation :  they  were  bound  to  show  cause  for  every 
change  they  advocated ;  and  they  admitted  the  fairness  of  this  requisi- 
tion, and  accepted  the  challenge.  But  they  were  not  bound  to  show 
cause  for  retaining  what  they  left  unaltered.  The  presumption  was,  in 
these  points,  on  their  side ;  and  they  had  only  to  reply  to  objections. 
This  important  distinction  is  often  lost  sight  of,  by  those  who  look  at  the 
'  doctrines,  &c,  of  the  Church  of  England  as  constituted  at  the  Reform- 
ation,' in  the  mass,  without  distinguishing  the  altered  from  the  unaltered 
parts.  The  framers  of  the  Articles  kept  this  in  mind  in  their  expression 
respecting  infant  baptism,  that  it  ought  by  all  means  to  be  retained. 
They  did  not  introduce  the  practice,  but  left  it  as  they  found  it;  con- 
sidering the  burden  to  lie  on  those  who  denied  its  existence  in  the 
primitive  church,  to  show  when  it  did  arise." 

The  burden  of  proof  did  not  lie  on  the  Reformers.  They  who  held 
the  established  doctrine  and  rites  at  that  time,  were  bound  to  show  that 
they  are  the  doctrines  and  rites  of  the  New  Testament.  The  business 
of  the  Reformers  was  to  refute  any  arguments  from  Scripture  alleged  in 
support  by  their  opponents.  What  is  the  thing  controverted  ?  Is  it  not 
whether  certain  doctrines  and  rites  are  instituted  in  Scripture  1  If  this 
protestant  Archbishop  receive  the  common  protestant  maxim,  the  Bible, 
the  ichole  Bible,  and  nothing  but  the  Bible,  he  cannot  controvert  this. 
And  if  this  is  the  controversy,  is  it  not  necessarily  the  business  of  those 
who  hold  them  to  be  in  Scripture,  to  produce  the  proof  that  they  are  in 
Scripture  ?  The  business  of  the  other  is  to  refute  the  alleged  evidence. 
This  is  a  self-evident  truth.  If  any  doctrine,  or  rite,  declines  to  show 
its  proof,  from  the  admitted  standard,  it  necessarily  falls  to  the  ground 
for  want  of  proof.  To  deny  it  is  to  disprove  it.  If  it  will  not  bear  the 
burden  of  proof,  it  is  unproved.  The  opposers  of  it  have  nothing  to  do. 
They  cannot  refute  proof  that  is  not  submitted  to  them.  If  pre-occupa- 
tion  is  rested  on,  that  pre-occupation  must  either  be  evidence,  or  the 
thing  is  believed  without  evidence.  But  pre-occupation  is  not  proof, 
and  the  Archbishop  himself  does  not  make  it  even  probability. 

Besides,  as  soon  as  the  Reformers  had  received  their  new  system,  that 
system,  with  respect  to  themselves,  had  pre-occupation.  It  was  in  pos- 
session, and  according  to  the  Archbishop's  doctrine,  they  had  a  right  to 
cast  the  burden  of  proof  on  the  other  side.  There  is  a  confusion  in  the 
Archbishop's  doctrine,  which  I  am  surprised  to  find  in  the  views  of  so 
great  a  logician.  Pre-occupation  he  at  one  time  applies  with  reference 
to  the  date  of  the  doctrine  or  institution ;  at  another  with  reference  to 
the  reception  of  the  doctrine  or  rite  by  individuals.  He  grants  the 
privilege  of  pre-occupation  to  every  man  with  respect  to  his  own  system, 
or  the  system  of  his  party.  There  is  nothing  akin  in  these  two  pre- 
occupations. 

The  distinction  on  which  the  Archbishop  rests  all  the  rites  retained 
by  the  Reformation,  is  indeed  a  very  important  one,  but  it  is  a  distinction 
that  has  not  the  shadow  of  a  support  either  in  Scripture  or  in  self-evident 
truth.  If  a  man  is  bound  to  show  cause  for  every  change,  he  is  equally 
bound  to  do  so,  with  respect  to  every  thing  which  he  retains.     He  must 


12  THE    BURDEN    OF    PROOF. 

submit  evidence  for  every  thing  which  he  holds,  or  be  charged  with  the 
absurdity  of  believing  without  evidence.  If  the  Reformers  renounced 
extreme  unction  because  it  was  not  instituted  in  Scripture,  why  did  they 
retain  infant  baptism,  or  any  other  human  invention? 

How  could  the  Reformers  disprove  what  they  rejected  ?  Was  it  not 
by  proving  that  the  rejected  doctrines  and  rites  were  not  taught  in 
Scripture  ?  And  was  not  this  as  easily  to  be  done  with  respect  to  many 
things  which  they  retained,  as  it  was  with  respect  to  those  which  they 
rejected  ?  And  how  was  this  to  be  done  with  respect  to  either,  but  by 
denying  that  they  are  in  Scripture,  and  challenging  their  opponents  to 
proof?  Were  they  to  quote  the  whole  Scriptures,  sentence  by  sentence, 
showing  as  they  proceeded  that  the  rejected  doctrines  and  rites  were 
not  there  ?  This  absurdity  is  imported  in  the  doctrine  that  proof  lay 
with  the  Reformers.  It  is  a  truth  clear  as  the  light  of  the  sun,  that,  in 
every  instance,  proof  lies  with  the  affirmative,  or  with  the  holders  of  the 
doctrine  or  rite. 

But  even  if  proof  of  the  rites  and  institutions  retained  by  the  Reform- 
ers, lay  with  their  opponents,  what  is  it  they  have  to  prove  ?  Is  it  not 
merely  that  the  things  objected  to,  are  not  instituted  in  Scripture  ?  But 
the  Archbishop  unjustly  calls  for  the  proof  of  a  very  different  thing,  a 
thing  that  in  no  case  can  be  demanded.  He  demands  of  the  opponents 
of  the  rejected  rite,  or  institution,  "  to  show  when  it  did  arise."  I  care 
not  when  it  arose.  It  is  perfectly  sufficient  for  my  cause,  that  it  is  not 
in  Scripture.  Let  its  friends  trace  its  genealogy.  This  demand  is 
arbitrary,  unscriptural,  irrational.  You  might  as  well  demand  the  author 
of  the  rite  as  the  time  of  the  introduction  of  the  rite.  Do  the  Scriptures 
teach  that  every  rite  in  existence  is  to  be  continued,  unless  the  time  of 
its  introduction  shall  be  ascertained  ?  Is  it  a  self-evident  truth  that  every 
thing  ought  to  be  retained  as  divine,  which  cannot  be  traced  to  its  origin  ? 
Here  is  a  forged  bank  note  that  has  passed  over  half  the  kingdom,  im- 
posing on  the  best  judges,  but  is  at  last  rejected  by  the  bank ;  will  the 
Archbishop  think  himself  bound  to  receive  it  in  payment,  unless  he  can 
trace  it  to  its  origin?  This  bank  note  has  pre-occupation,  yet  I  will 
engage  that  his  Grace  will  shift  the  burden  of  proof  from  his  own  shoul- 
ders. His  demand  is  not  founded  on  any  self-evident  principle  of  evi- 
dence, but  has  been  first  invented  for  the  very  purpose  of  giving  a 
sanction  to  the  circulation  of  human  forgeries  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 

"  The  case  of  Episcopacy,"  says  his  Grace,  "  is  exactly  parallel ;  but 
Hooker  seems  to  have  overlooked  this  advantage:  he  sets  himself  to 
prove  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  institution,  as  if  his  task  was  to  intro- 
duce it.  Whatever  force  there  may  be  in  arguments  so  adduced,  it  is 
plain  they  must  have  far  more  force  if  the  important  presumption  be  kept 
in  view,  that  the  institution  had  notoriously  existed  many  ages,  and  that 
consequently,  even  if  there  had  been  no  direct  evidence  of  its  being 
coeval  with  Christianity,  it  might  fairly  be  at  least  supposed  to  be  so, 
till  some  other  period  should  be  pointed  out  at  which  it  had  been  intro- 
duced as  an  innovation." 

The  case  of  episcopacy  is,  indeed,  exactly  parallel  with  that  of  infant 
baptism ;    and  equally  groundless.     Hooker   showed  his  judgment  in 


THE    BURDEN    OF    PROOF.  13 

declining  a  mode  of  defence  which  is  so  completely  irrational.  Epis- 
copacy, and  every  doctrine  and  institution,  must  submit  their  proof,  or 
be  charged  as  being  without  proof.  To  prove  an  existing  institution 
o  be  scriptural,  and  to  introduce,  as  scriptural,  one  which  has  been 
neglected,  demand  the  same  process.  The  question  to  be  discussed  is, 
whether  the  institution  is  in  Scripture,  not  whether  it  is  in  practice 
among  any  denomination.  What  is  the  ground  on  which  this  distinc- 
tion rests?  Do  the  Scriptures  teach,  that  an  institution  in  practical 
existence,  has  a  pre-occupation  that  entitles  it  to  be  received  as  Divine, 
until  it  is  convicted  of  human  origin?  Is  it  a  self-evident  truth?  No 
such  thing :  it  is  a  figment  forged  to  sanction  the  doctrines  and  tradi- 
tions of  men. 

But  even  if  proof  did  lie  on  the  opposer  of  episcopacy,  what  is  he  to 
prove  ?  Surely  nothing  more  than  that  it  is  not  in  Scripture.  Yet  the 
Archbishop  puts  him  to  another  proof.  He  obliges  him  to  point  out  a 
period  at  which  it  arose  as  an  innovation.  I  resist  such  a  demand,  as 
unscriptural,  irrational,  and  without  countenance  from  self-evident  truth. 
No  man,  in  order  to  disprove  error,  is  obliged  to  hunt  after  its  origin. 
If  I  knew  the  pedigree  and  the  birth  of  episcopacy  to  a  moment,  I  would 
not  make  use  of  my  knowledge,  without  a  caution  that  the  thing  is  not 
necessary  to  my  case. 

What  is  presumption  in  the  explained  sense  of  his  Grace  ?  It  is  a 
pre-occupation  of  the  ground,  that  does  not  take  the  thing  for  granted, 
or  mean  that  it  is  more  likely  than  not.  But  what  is  this  presumption 
about  episcopacy  ?  It  is  a  presumption  by  which  "  it  might  fairly,  at 
least,  be  supposed  to  be  so,  till,"  &c.  Does  not  this  take  the  thing  for 
granted,  till  contrary  proof  is  submitted  ? 

In  the  foregoing  extract  it  is  assumed  that  if  episcopacy  existed  at  a 
certain  period,  it  must  be  of  Divine  origin.  This  I  deny.  Were  I 
writing  against  episcopacy,  I  would  trample  on  the  evidence  with  regard 
to  its  date.  I  care  not  if  it  was  coeval  with  Adam,  if  it  is  not  appointed 
in  the  Scriptures.  It  is  also  insinuated  that  there  is  some  degree  of 
direct  evidence  for  episcopacy.  Does  this  mean  Scripture  evidence  ? 
Will  the  very  learned  and  liberal  Archbishop  of  Dublin  venture  to 
assert,  that  the  Scriptures  make  the  bishop  an  officer  superior  to  the 
presbyter  ? 

It  is  here  supposed  that  the  fact  that  episcopacy  notoriously  existed 
many  ages,  is  ground  to  believe  that  it  is  coeval  with  Christianity,  unless 
the  period  can  be  pointed  at  which  it  had  been  introduced.  The  writer 
is  universally  acknowledged  as  the  first  logician  in  Europe ;  yet  this  is 
not  logic.  It  might  be  coeval  with  Christianity,  and  not  be  Christian  : 
it  might  have  existed  many  ages,  and  not  be  coeval  with  Christianity, 
even  although  the  period  of  its  introduction  could  not  be  pointed  out. 
Freemasonry  has  existed  for  many  ages.  Are  we  to  believe  the  brother- 
hood that  it  is  of  Divine  origin,  or  that  it  was  instituted  by  Hiram  the 
great  architect  of  Solomon,  unless  we  are  able  to  trace  its  origin  ? 

"  In  the  case  of  any  doctrines,  again,"  says  the  writer,  "professing  to 
be  essential  parts  of  the  Gospel  revelation,  the  fair  presumption  is,  that 
we  shall  find  all  such  distinctly  declared  in  Scripture." 


14  THE    BURDEN    OF    PROOF. 

Here,  it  seems,  his  Grace  abandons  his  defined  sense  of  the  word 
presumption,  and  uses  it  in  the  sense  which  he  condemns — the  common 
English  sense,  importing  a  degree  of  probability.  I  ask  every  reader 
whether  this  is  not  the  sense  in  which  he  understands  the  words  last 
quoted.  Does  he  not  mean  that  the  thing  referred  to,  is  more  probable, 
or  more  likely  than  the  contrary  1  It  respects  not  the  burden  of  proof, 
nor  pre-occupation  of  the  ground ;  but  the  antecedent  probability  of  the 
thing  asserted.  Why  is  the  thing  to  be  presumed  1  Is  it  not  because 
of  its  probability  1 

With  respect  to  the  assertion  itself,  while  it  is  not  only  probable,  but 
self-evidently  true,  that  every  thing  revealed  by  God,  will  be  revealed 
with  a  sufficient  degree  of  clearness,  and  that  every  thing  is  revealed 
which  he-  commands  to  be  believed  or  practised,  yet  as  to  the  manner 
and  degree  of  clearness  of  the  revelation,  there  can  be  no  just  anticipa- 
tion. Here  the  anticipations  of  human  wisdom  have  always  failed. 
How  a  thing  is  to  be  revealed,  we  learn  from  the  revelation,  not  from 
our  own  anticipations.  It  is  sufficient  if  a  truth,  or  duty,  is  revealed  in 
any  manner.  Has  the  Archbishop  a  design  of  protecting,  by  his  pre- 
sumption, disbelief  of  certain  doctrines,  as  not  being  essential  parts  of 
revelation,  because  their  opponents  may  allege  that  they  are  riot  dis- 
tinctly declared  in  Scripture  ? 

"  And  again,  in  respect  of  commands  or  prohibitions,  or  to  any  point," 
says  the  author,  "  delivered  by  our  Lord  or  his  apostles,  there  is  a  pre- 
sumption that  Christians  are  bound  to  obey."  Why  speak  of  this  as  a 
presumption  ?  Can  anything  be  more  certain  than  that  all  the  com- 
mands and  prohibitions  delivered  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  are  to 
be  obeyed  by  those  who  profess  subjection  to  him  ? 

"  If  any  one,"  continues  the  writer,  "  maintain  on  the  ground  of  tra-\ 
dition  the  necessity  of  some  additional  articles  of  faith  (as  for  instance 
that  of  purgatory)  or  the  propriety  of  a  departure  from  the  New  Testa-  . 
ment  precepts  (as  for  instance  in  the  denial  of  the  cup  to  the  laity  in 
the  Eucharist)  the  burden  of  proof  lies  with  him." 

In  such  cases,  instead  of  calling  for  proof,  I  would  assert  that  the  ♦ 
things  supposed  are  incapable  of  proof.  It  is  assumed  that  the  things 
referred  to  are  not  in  Scripture ;  but  are  additional  articles  of  faith. 
Now,  if  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  standard,  how  can  anything  not  in 
the  Scriptures,  be  proved  from  the  Scriptures  ?  If  any  man  adds  tra- 
dition to  his  standard,  we  have  not  a  common  standard,  and  cannot  rea- 
son as  to  the  conformity  or  nonconformity  of  certain  doctrines  to  our 
standard.  We  must  dispute,  not  about  doctrines,  but  about  the  standard 
of  our  doctrines.  If  any  one,  professing  to  be  guided  by  the  New  Testa- 
ment, asserts  the  propriety  of  a  departure  from  New  Testament  precepts, 
I  would  not  call  on  him  for  proof;  I  would  assert  that  the  thing  is 
absurd.     How  can  a  standard  teach  that  it  is  not  a  standard  1 

"  It  should  be  also  remarked,  under  this  head,"  says  the  author,  "  that 
in  any  one  question  the  presumption  will  often  be  found  to  lie  on  differ- 
ent sides,  in  respect  of  different  parties — e.  g.,  In  the  question  between  a 
member  of  the  Church  of  England  and  a  Presbyterian,  or  member  of  any 
other  church,  on  which  side  does  the  presumption  lie?  Evidently,  to  each, 


THE    BURDEN    OF    PROOF.  15 

in  favour  of  the  religious  community  to  which  he  at  present  belongs. 
He  is  not  to  separate  from  the  church  of  which  he  is  a  member,  without 
having  some  sufficient  reason  to  allege." 

In  the  Archbishop's  sense  of  the  word  presumption,  this  appears  to 
me  a  paradox  in  the  worst  sense  of  the  word.  It  is  impossible  that  two 
parties  can  have  previous  possession  of  the  same  thing.  One  may  have 
pre-occupation  of  one  part  of  the  disputed  property,  and  another  of  an- 
other ;  but  unless  they  are  as  clever  as  St.  Dennis,  who  kissed  his  own 
head,  they  cannot  be  both  put  in  possession  of  the  same  thing. 

And  the  paradox  is  obviously  founded  on  a  confounding  of  things 
that  are  different.  The  presumption  of  the  episcopalian  is  not  the 
presumption  of  him  who  holds  the  bishop  and  the  presbyter  to  be  the 
same  officer.  The  pre-occupation  of  the  episcopalian,  as  the  Archbishop 
formerly  stated,  is  a  present  occupation  preceded  by  a  previous  occupa- 
tion of  notoriously  many  ages'  duration.  But  here  the  pre-occupation 
respects  present  possession,  that  is,  to  have  authority  with  none  but 
themselves  respectively.  In  this  kind  of  pre-occupation,  the  episcopa- 
lian is  only  on  a  footing  with  his  opponent.  And  this  is  a  most  useless 
pre-occupation  that  equally  belongs  to  all  opinions,  and  is  to  have  influ- 
ence only  on  those  who  hold  them.  This  cannot  affect  the  burden  of 
proof.  The  pre-occupation  in  which  episcopacy  glories,  is  not  the  pre- 
occupation here  recognised. 

If  this  is  presumption ,  and  if  presumption  has  the  privilege  of  casting 
the  burden  of  proof  on  the  other  side,  then  every  man  has  a  right  to 
decline  defending  his  own  opinions,  and  to  cast  the  burden  of  proof  upon 
those  who  dispute  them.     Can  anything  be  more  monstrous? 

"  It  is  worth  remarking,"  says  the  author,  "  that  a  presumption  may 
be  rebutted  by  an  opposite  presumption,  so  as  to  shift  the  burden  of 
proof  to  the  other  side :  e.  g.,  Suppose  you  had  advised  the  removal  of 
some  existing  restriction  :  you  might  be,  in  the  first  instance,  called  on 
to  take  the  burden  of  proof,  and  allege  your  reasons  for  the  change,  on 
the  ground  that  there  is  a  presumption  against  every  change.  But  you 
might  fairly  reply,  True,  but  there  is  another  presumption  which  rebuts 
the  former :  every  restriction  is  in  itself  an  evil ;  and  therefore  there  is 
a  presumption  in  favour  of  its  removal,  unless  it  can  be  shown  necessary 
for  prevention  of  some  greater  evil ;  I  am  not  bound  to  allege  any 
specific  inconvenience ;  if  the  restriction  is  unnecessary ,  that  is  reason 
enough  for  its  abolition :  its  defenders  therefore  are  fairly  called  on  to 
prove  its  necessity." 

It  is  true  that  a  presumption  may  be  rebutted  by  an  opposite  presump- 
tion, if  the  word  is  taken  in  its  common  English  sense.  But  I  cannot 
see  how  this  is  true  according  to  the  sense  in  which  the  word  is  ex- 
plained by  the  Archbishop.  If  one  thing  pretends  pre-occupation,  how 
can  it  be  rebutted,  as  to  pre-occupation,  but  by  proving  that  its  preten- 
sions to  pre-occupation  are  false  1  If  by  pre-occupation  it  has  the  privilege 
of  casting  the  burden  of  proof  on  its  opponent,  how  can  this  burden  be 
cast  upon  it,  except  it  is  proved  not  to  have  the  pre-occupation  which  it 
pretended  ?  One  of  them  only  can  have  pre-occupation,  and  consequently 
that  one  only  can  have  presumption.     Can  each  of  them  be  before  the 


16  THE    BURDEN    OF    PROOF. 

other?    This  would  be  like  the  seven  ladies,  who  were  each  of  them 
handsomer  than  another. 

A  change  is  in  itself  neither  good  nor  evil ;  it  is  good  or  evil  accord- 
ing to  the  nature  of  the  thing  changed :  consequently  it  cannot  be  a 
sound,  just  principle  that  "  there  is  a  presumption  against  every  change." 
A  presumption,  in  the  English  sense  of  the  word,  that  lies  against  a 
change,  must  be  founded  on  the  supposition  that  the  thing  sought  to  be 
changed,  was  at  first  the  result  of  wisdom,  or  at  least  of  deliberation. 
This  is  the  case  with  respect  to  all  laws.  But  mere  pre-occupation  has 
not  the  smallest  authority.  And  though  when  a  legislator  calls  for  the 
change  of  a  law,  it  is  implied  that  he  considers  it  either  bad  or  useless, 
yet  in  all  cases  the  defender  of  the  law  is  bound  to  prove  the  utility  or 
innocence  of  the  law :  his  opponents  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  disprove 
his  arguments  and  show  that  he  has  failed  to  prove  its  innocence,  or  its 
utility.     If  they  succeed,  the  law  is  justly  dead. 

What  does  the  learned  author  mean  by  presumption  when  he  says 
that  "  there  is  a  presumption  in  favour  of  the  removal  of  every  restric- 
tion, unless  it  can  be  shown  necessary  for  the  prevention  of  some  greater 
evil  1"  If  every  restriction  is  in  itself  an  evil,  can  certainty  be  more  cer- 
tain than  that  it  should  be  removed,  if  unnecessary  1  Here  presumption 
turns  out  to  be  self-evidence,  and  the  restriction  being  unnecessary ,  is 
never  enough  for  its  removal.  Here  presumption  is  more  than  proba- 
bility, and  rests  on  self-evident  truth. 

But  does  not  the  Archbishop  here  abandon  his  own  doctrine  ?  Has 
not  the  restriction  pre-occupation  ?  According  to  the  author,  then,  the 
burden  of  proof  falls  on  those  who  dispute  it.  Yet  he  puts  the  burden 
of  proof  on  those  who  defend  the  restriction,  on  the  ground  of  self- 
evident  truth.  "  Its  defenders,"  he  asserts,  "  are  fairly  called  on  to 
prove  its  necessity."     If  so,  pre-occupation  has  no  authority. 

The  following  passage,  quoted  by  the  writer  from  Dr.  Hawkins,  is 
entirely  in  harmony  with  my  doctrine.  "  In  no  other  instance  perhaps 
besides  that  of  religion,  do  men  commit  the  very  illogical  mistake  of 
first  canvassing  all  the  objections  against  any  particular  system  whose 
pretensions  to  truth  they  would  examine,  before  they  consider  the  direct 
arguments  in  its  favour."  Now,  if  the  arguments  in  favour  of  a  doctrine, 
or  system,  are  first  to  be  considered,  who  is  it  that  is  obliged  to  state 
these  arguments  ?  Must  it  not  be  the  person  who  holds  the  doctrine  or 
system  ?  How  can  the  objector  reply  to  arguments  that  are  not  laid 
before  him  ?  And  it  is  perfectly  the  same  thing  with  a  man  examining 
his  own  system,  or  doctrine :  he  must  first  consider  the  arguments  in 
proof,  and  afterwards  the  objections :  for  it  is  an  important  truth  that 
is  stated  by  Dr.  Hawkins,  that  "  there  may  be  truth,  and  truth  supported 
by  irrefragable  arguments ;  and  yet  at  the  same  time  obnoxious  to  ob- 
jections, numerous,  plausible,  and  by  no  means  easy  of  solution."  I  go 
farther ;  there  may  be  truth  liable  to  objections  that  to  us  may  be  un- 
answerable, while  the  proof  is  irrefragable. 

But  the  next  quotation  is  not  in  accordance  with  this.  He  adds,  "  that 
sensible  men,  really  desirous  of  discovering  the  truth,  will  perceive  that 
reason  directs  them  to  examine  first  the  arguments  in  favour  of  that  side 


THE    BURDEN    OF    PROOF  17 

of  the  question  where  the  first  presumption  of  truth  appears.  And  the 
presumption  is  manifestly  in  favour  of  that  religious  creed  already  adopt- 
ed by  the  country."  Reason  directs  to  begin  the  inquiry  as  to  the  truth 
of  any  religion,  by  examining  the  evidences  alleged  in  its  favour,  whether 
antecedent  probability  be  favourable  or  unfavourable.  But  it  is  monstrous 
to  suppose  that  there  is  a  "presumption  of  truth"  in  favour  of  the  re- 
ligion of  a  man's  country.  What  relation  to  truth  has  the  relation  of  a 
man  to  his  country?  According  to  this  doctrine  there  is  a  presumption 
of  the  truth  of  every  religion  in  the  world.  What  is  the  value  of  that 
presumption  in  favour  of  any  religion,  which  is  equally  a  presumption 
in  favour  of  every  other  religion  ? 

Upon  the  whole,  the  doctrine  of  the  learned  and  scientific  Archbishop, 
on  the  subject  of  the  burden  of  proof,  is  neither  scriptural  nor  philo- 
sophical :  it  is  self-evidently  false.  Presumption  is  not  pre-occupation  of 
the  ground,  and  pre-occupation  decides  not  the  privilege.  The  burden 
of  proof  cannot  be  directed  by  any  arbitrary  principle,  but  must  be  de- 
termined by  self-evidence  from  the  nature  of  the  theory.  The  side  that 
affirms  needs  the  proof;  and  the  side  that  needs  the  proof  must  produce 
it.  Infant  baptism,  then,  and  episcopacy,  and  all  religious  rites,  must 
show  their  authority  in  Scripture,  or  perish  with  the  other  human  in- 
ventions discontinued  at  the  Reformation.  "  Every  plant  which  my 
heavenly  Father  hath  not  planted,  shall  be  plucked  up." 

I  will  close  my  observations  on  his  Grace's  doctrine,  with  stating  a 
presumption.  I  appeal  to  every  man  of  candour,  is  there  not  a  vehe- 
ment presumption  against  the  supposition  that  infant  baptism  is  in  Scrip- 
ture, when  so  eminent  a  scholar  as  the  Archbishop  of  Dublin  labours  so 
hard  to  find  it  a  slippery  foundation  in  pre-occupation?  Were  it  in 
Scripture,  Dr.  Whatley  is  the  man  who  could  defend  its  title  against 
every  opponent. 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


Meaning  of  the  word  bapto — Difference  between  bapto  and  baptizo. 

Section  I.— The  word  BAPTO,  from  which  is  formed  BAPTIZO, 
signifies  primarily,  to  dip;  and,  as  a  secondary  meaning  obviously  de- 
rived from  the  primary,  it  denotes  to  dye.  Every  occurrence  of  the  word 
may  be  reduced  to  one  or  other  of  these  acceptations.  It  has  been  said, 
that  it  signifies  also  to  wash;  but,  though  this  is  given  by  the  lexicogra- 
phers as  one  of  its  meanings,  and  is  admitted  by  many  Baptist  writers, 
it  is  not  warranted  by  a  single  decisive  example,  either  in  the  Scriptures, 
or  in  the  classical  authors.  It  has  also  been  said  that  it  is  a  generic 
word,  and,  without  respect  to  mode,  or  inclusive  of  all  modes,  denotes 
any  application  of  water.  So  far  from  this,  the  idea  of  water  is  not  at 
all  in  the  word.  It  is  as  applicable  to  every  fluid  as  to  water.  Nay,  it  is 
not  confined  to  liquids,  but  is  applied  to  every  thing  that  is  penetrated. 
The  substance  in  which  the  action  of  the  verb  is  performed,  may  be  oil, 
or  wax,  or  mire,  or  any  other  soft  matter,  as  well  as  water.  Except 
when  it  signifies  to  dye,  it  denotes  mode,  and  nothing  but  mode. 

Bapto  and  Baptizo  are  considered  by  most  writers  as  perfectly  iden- 
tical in  their  signification.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  writers  on  this 
subject,  on  both  sides  of  the  great  question,  who  have  assigned  a  differ- 
ence of  meaning,  which  is  merely  fanciful.  Some  have  alleged,  that  the 
termination  zo  makes  baptizo  a  diminutive;  but  utterly  without  counte- 
nance from  the  practice  of  the  language.  Others  have  erred  as  far  on 
the  other  side,  and  equally  without  authority  make  baptizo  a  frequentative. 
The  termination  zo  has  no  such  effect  as  either  class  of  these  writers  sup- 
pose; and  the  history  of  the  word,  both  in  sacred  and  classical  use,  justi- 
fies no  such  notion.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  early  church  history  shows 
that  Baptism  was  performed  by  three  immersions;  but  it  is  equally  true, 
that  this  is  neither  scriptural,  nor  indicated  by  the  termination  of  the 
verb.  Even  had  Christ  appointed  trine  immersion,  the  frequency  could 
not  have  been  expressed  by  this  word.  We  should  recollect  that  the 
word  was  not  formed  for  this  religious  ordinance ;  but,  being  taken  from 
the  language,  must  be  used  in  the  common  sense.  The  termination  zo 
does  not  make  a  frequentative  according  to  the  practice  of  the  language 
in  other  words;  and  the  verb  baptizo  is  not  used  as  a  frequentative  by 

18 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  19 

Greek  writers.  It  could  not  become  such,  then,  in  an  ordinance  of 
Christ.  When  Tertullian  translates  it  by  mergitare,  he  might  wish  to 
countenance  the  trine  immersion ;  but  it  is  strange  that  he  should  be 
followed  by  Vossius  and  Stephens.  It  is  strange,  also,  to  find  some  Bap- 
tists still  speaking  of  baptizo  as  a  frequentative  verb,  since  they  cannot 
suppose  that  it  is  such  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  It  is  a  sufficient 
induction  from  the  actual  history  of  a  language,  and  not  speculations 
from  theory,  that  can  settle  a  question  of  this  kind. 

The  learned  Dr.  Gale,  in  his  Reflections  on  Mr.  Wall's  History  of 
Infant  Baptism,  after  giving  us  a  copious  list  of  quotations,  in  which 
bapto  and  baptizo  are  used,  says  :  "  I  think  it  is  plain,  from  the  instances 
already  mentioned,  that  they  are  exactly  the  same  as  to  signification." 
As  far  as  respects  an  increase  or  diminution  of  the  action  of  the  verb,  I 
perfectly  agree  with  the  writer.  That  the  one  is  more  or  less  than  the 
other,  as  to  mode  or  frequency,  is  a  perfectly  groundless  conceit.  Yet 
there  is  a  very  obvious  difference  in  the  use  of  the  words,  and  a  differ- 
ence that  naturally  affects  the  point  at  issue.     This  difference  is,  bapto 

IS  NEVER  USED  TO  DENOTE  THE  ORDINANCE  OF  BAPTISM,  AND  BAPTIZO 

never  signifies  to  dye.  The  primitive  word  bapto  has  two  significa- 
tions, the  primary  to  dip,  the  secondary  to  dye.  But  the  derivative  is 
formed  to  modify  the  primary  only;  and  in  all  the  Greek  language,  I 
assert  that  an  instance  is  not  to  be  found  in  which  it  has  the  secondary 
meaning  of  the  primitive  word.  If  this  assertion  is  not  correct,  it  will 
be  easy  for  learned  men  to  produce  an  example  in  contradiction.  That 
bapto  is  never  applied  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  any  one  can  verify, 
who  is  able  to  look  into  the  passages  of  the  Greek  Testament,  where  the 
ordinance  is  spoken  of.  Now,  if  this  observation  is  just,  it  overturns 
all  those  speculations  that  explain  the  word,  as  applied  to  baptism,  by 
an  allusion  to  dyeing;  for  the  primitive  word  that  has  this  secondary 
meaning  is  not  applied  to  the  ordinance;  and  the  derivative  word,  which 
is  appointed  to  express  it,  has  not  the  secondary  signification  of  dyeing. 
Bapto  has  two  meanings;  baptizo  in  the  whole  history  of  the  Greek 
language  has  but  one.  It  not  only  signifies  to  dip  or  immerse,  but  it  never 
has  any  other  meaning.  Each  of  these  words  has  its  specific  province, 
into  which  the  other  cannot  enter ;  while  there  is  a  common  province  in 
which  either  of  them  may  serve.  Either  of  them  may  signify  to  dip 
generally ;  but  the  primitive  cannot  specifically  express  that  ordinance  to 
which  the  derivative  has  been  appropriated ;  and  the  derivative  cannot 
signify  to  dye,  which  is  a  part  of  the  province  of  the  primitive.  The 
difference  is  precise  and  important.  Most  of  the  confusion  of  ideas  on 
both  sides  of  the  question,  with  respect  to  the  definite  meaning  of  the 
word  baptism,  has  arisen  from  overlooking  this  difference.  Writers,  in 
general,  have  argued  from  the  one  word  to  the  other,  as  if  they  perfectly 
corresponded  in  meaning. 

To  show  that  derivatives  in  zo  are  equivalent  to  their  primitives,  Dr. 
Gale  gives  us  a  number  of  examples.  Now,  in  every  thing  essential  to 
his  purpose,  this  is  perfectly  true;  and  in  innumerable  instances,  no 
variation  may  be  capable  of  being  traced.  Yet  I  apprehend  that  such 
derivatives  were  not  introduced  merely  to  vary  the  sound,  but  that  they 


20  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

were  originally  designed  to  modify  the  action  of  the  primitive  verbs. 
The  termination  zo,  when  employed  to  form  a  derivative,  appears  to  me 
to  have  served  some  such  purpose,  as  the  Hebrew  causal  form,  and  to 
denote  the  making  of  the  action  of  the  verb  to  be  performed.  Mere 
speculation  is  of  no  value.  The  most  ingenious  theory,  not  confirmed  by 
the  use  of  the  language,  ought  to  have  no  authority.  To  ground  any- 
thing on  conjectures,  with  respect  to  a  subject  that  concerns  the  faith  or 
obedience  of  the  people  of  God,  would  be  not  only  unphilosophical  but 
impious.  But  that  my  observation  is  just,  may  be  fully  verified  by 
examples.  There  cannot  be  the  smallest  doubt,  that  the  Greeks  did 
form  derivatives  on  this  plan.  Could  I  produce  no  other  instance,  the 
following  from  ^Elian's  Varia  Historia,  would  be  sufficient  to  establish 
my  doctrine.  It  occurs  in  the  anecdote  he  relates  with  respect  to  the 
beneficence  of  Ptolemy  Lagides.  "  They  say  that  Ptolemy,  the  son  of 
Lagus,  took  great  delight  in  enriching  his  friends.  He  said  that  it  is 
better  to  enrich  others  than  to  be  rich,"  197.*  Here  ploateo  is  to  be 
rich,  and  ploutizo,  to  make  rich. 

We  have  another  instance  in  Heraclides,  "  of  whom  he  provided 
many  with  a  supper."  Dcipnco  is  to  sup;  deipnizo  signifies  to  give  a 
supper. 

Such,  then,  indubitably  was  originally  the  use  of  derivatives  with  this 
termination,  though  in  many  cases  they  and  their  primitives  may  be 
interchangeable ;  and  although  in  some  the  distinction  cannot  at  all  be 
traced. 

In  this  view  baptizo  would  signify  originally  to  make  an  object  dip. 
Its  use  then,  would  be  to  apply  to  the  dipping  of  things  too  heavy  to  be 
sustained  by  the  dipper.  Its  use  in  classical  occurrence,  I  think,  will 
accord  with  this.  Compared  with  its  primitive,  its  occurrence  in  profane 
writers  is  very  rare,  and  it  generally  applies  to  objects  that  are  too 
heavy  to  be  lifted  or  borne  by  the  dipper.  It  applies  to  ships  which  are 
made  to  dip  by  the  weight  of  the  lading.  As  to  the  general  idea  of  dip- 
ping, the  primitive  and  the  derivative  are  interchangeable.  The  primi- 
tive may  be  used  with  respect  to  the  largest  body  that  can  be  immersed ; 
but  it  will  not  express  the  modification  denoted  by  the  derivative.  The 
derivative  may  be  applied  to  the  smallest  object  that  is  dipped ;  for  it  is 
evident,  that  if  we  dip  an  object  in  any  way,  we  cause  it  to  dip  or  sink. 
I  shall  illustrate  this  observation  further  when  examples  actually  come 
before  us.  In  the  mean  time  I  observe,  that  whatever  may  originally 
have  been  the  modification  of  the  termination  in  question,  the  difference 
in  the  use  of  bapto  and  baptizo  is  clearly  established.  To  ascertain  a 
difference,  and  to  account  for  that  difference,  are  two  very  different 
things.  In  the  former  our  success  cannot  be  doubted,  whatever  may  be 
thought  with  respect  to  the  latter. 

From  some  instances  in  the  application  of  this  word,  Dr.  Gale  was 
induced  to  suppose  that  it  does  not  so  necessarily  express  the  action  of 
putting  under  water,  as  that  the  object  is  in  that  state.  But  this  is 
evidently  inconsistent  with  the  essential  meaning  of  the  word ;  and  not  at 

*  See  my  former  edition  for  the  original  of  all  my  translations. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  21 

all  demanded  by  the  examples  on  which  he  founds  it.  "  The  word 
baptizo,"  says  he,  "  perhaps  does  not  so  necessarily  express  the  action  of 
putting  under  water,  as  in  general  a  thing  being  in  that  condition,  no 
matter  how  it  comes  so,  whether  it  is  put  into  the  water,  or  the  water 
comes  over  it."  Now,  were  this  observation  just,  every  thing  lying 
under  water  might  have  this  literally  applied  to  it.  But  every  one 
acquainted  with  the  Greek  language  must  acknowledge  that  the  word  has 
not  literally  such  an  application.  In  any  particular  instance  when  this 
word  is  applied  to  an  object  lying  under  water,  but  not  actually  dipped, 
the  mode  essentially  denoted  by  it  is  as  truly  expressed  as  in  any  other 
instance  of  its  occurrence.  Indeed,  the  whole  beauty  of  such  expressions 
consists  in  the  expression  of  a  mode  not  really  belonging  to  the  thing 
expressed.  The  imagination,  for  its  own  gratification,  invests  the  object 
with  a  mode  that  does  not  truly  belong  to  it ;  and  if  that  mode  were  not 
suggested  to  the  mind,  the  expression  would  lose  its  peculiar  beauty. 
Common  conversation  exemplifies  this  mode  of  expression  every  day ; 
and  mere  children  understand  its  import.  When  a  person  has  been 
drenched  with  rain,  he  will  say  that  he  has  got  a  dipping.  Here  dipping 
does  not  lose  its  modal  import,  but  immediately  suggests  it  to  the  mind, 
and  intends  to  suggest  it.  But  were  the  English  language  one  of  the 
dead  languages,  and  this  expression  subjected  to  learned  criticism,  it 
would  be  alleged  that  the  word  dipping  does  not  denote  mode,  but  wetting, 
without  reference  to  mode. 

The  very  example  alleged  by  Dr.  Gale  is  formed  on  this  principle. 
It  is  brought  from  the  works  of  Aristotle.  "  The  Phenicians  who 
inhabit  Cadiz  relate,  that,  sailing  beyond  Hercules'  Pillars,  in  four  days, 
with  the  wind  at  east,  they  came  to  a  land  uninhabited,  whose  coast  was 
full  of  sea-weeds,  and  is  not  laid  under  water  at  ebb ;  but  when  the 
tide  comes  in,  it  is  wholly  covered  and  overwhelmed."  Now,  though 
the  water  comes  over  the  land,  and  there  is  no  actual  exemplification  of 
the  mode  expressed  by  this  word,  yet  it  still  expresses  that  mode ;  and 
the  word  has  been  employed  for  the  very  purpose  of  expressing  it.  The 
peculiar  beauty  of  the  expression  consists  in  figuring  the  object,  which  is 
successively  bare  and  buried  under  water,  as  being  dipped  when  it  is 
covered,  and  as  emerging  when  it  is  bare.  In  the  same  style  we  might 
say  that,  at  the  flood,  God  immersed  the  mountains  in  the  waters,  though 
the  waters  came  over  them. 

No  example  can  more  clearly  disprove  the  notion,  that  this  word 
denotes  to  pour  or  sprinkle  a  little  water  on  an  object.  The  thing  here 
supposed  to  be  baptized  was  wholly  buried  under  water.  The  beach 
is  said  to  be  baptized  when  the  tide  comes  over  it.  Can  any  child,  then, 
be  at  a  loss  to  learn  from  this,  that  baptism  means  to  lay  under  water  ? 
Should  we  say  that  God  baptized  the  earth  at  the  flood,  we  should  use 
an  expression  exactly  like  the  above.  Who,  then,  can  be  at  a  loss  to 
know  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptism  ? 

This  example  tends  to  confirm  my  observation  with  respect  to  the 
peculiar  import  of  derivatives  in  zo.  This  was  a  large  object,  that  was 
not  supposed  to  be  taken  up  and  dipped,  but  to  be  caused  to  dip,  as  it 
were  by  sinking. 


22  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

The  distinction  which  I  have  observed  between  the  use  of  bapto  and 
baptizo,  will  enable  us  to  refute  the  interpretation  of  the  word  baptism 
by  Mr.  Robinson  of  Cambridge.  "  The  English  translators,"  says  he, 
"  did  not  translate  the  word  baptize,  and  they  acted  wisely ;  for  there 
is  no  one  word  in  the  English  language  which  is  an  exact  counterpart  of 
the  Greek  word,  as  the  New  Testament  uses  it,  containing  the  precise 
ideas  of  the  evangelists,  neither  less  nor  more.  The  difficulty,  or  rather 
the  excellence  of  the  word  is,  that  it  contains  two  ideas,  inclusive  of 
the  whole  doctrine  of  baptism.  Baptize  is  a  dyer's  word,  and  signifies 
to  dip,  so  as  to  colour.  Such  as  render  the  word  dip,  give  one  true 
idea ;  but  the  word  stood  for  two,  and  one  is  wanting  in  this  rendering. 
This  defect  is  in  the  German  Testament.  Matt.  iii.  1 :  'In  those  days 
came  John  cler  Tauffer,  John  the  Dipper ;'  and  the  Dutch :  '  In  those 
days  came  John  der  Dooper,  John  the  Dipper.'  This  is  the  truth,  but 
it  is  not  the  whole  truth.  The  Saxon  Testament  adds  another  idea,  by 
naming  the  administrator,  John  le  Fullubtere,  John  the  Fuller.  The 
Icelandic  language  translates  baptism  skirn,  scouring.  These  convey  two 
ideas,  cleansing  by  washing,  but  neither  do  these  accurately  express  the 
two  ideas  of  the  Greek  baptize ;  for  though  repentance,  in  some  cases 
accompanies  baptism,  as  it  does  prayer,  yet  not  in  every  case.  Jesus 
was  baptized  in  Jordan,  but  he  was  not  cleansed  from  any  moral  or 
ceremonial  turpitude  by  it,  nor  was  any  repentance  mixed  with  his 
baptism.  Purification  by  baptism  is  an  accident ;  it  may  be,  it  may  not 
be, — it  is  not  essential  to  baptism.  The  word,  then,  conveys  two  ideas, 
the  one  literal,  dipping,  the  other  figurative,  colouring ;  a  figure,  how- 
ever, expressive  of  a  real  fact,  meaning  that  John,  by  bathing  persons 
in  the  river  Jordan,  conferred  a  character,  a  moral  hue,  as  dyers,  by 
dipping  in  a  dyeing  vat,  set  a  tinct  or  colour ;  John,  by  baptism,  discri- 
minating the  disciples  of  Christ  from  other  men,  as  dyers,  by  colouring, 
distinguish  stuffs.  Hence  John  is  called,  by  early  Latins,  John  Tinctor, 
the  exact  Latin  of  Joannes  Baptistes,  John  the  Baptist." 

Mr.  Robinson  was  a  man  of  talents  and  of  extensive  reading ;  but 
whatever  other  accomplishment  he  might  possess,  the  above  specimen 
shows  that  he  was  no  critic.  Such  a  combination  of  the  primary  and 
secondary  meaning  of  a  word,  is  unphilosophical ;  and,  I  am  bold  to 
say,  that  in  no  language  was  it  ever  really  exemplified.  It  is  a  mere 
.speculation,  and  a  speculation  that  no  man  at  all  acquainted  with  the  phi- 
losophy of  language  could  indulge.  Did  Mr.  Robinson  suppose  that 
baptizo  had  this  double  import  in  common  and  classical  use  ?  If  he  did, 
he  must  have  paid  no  attention  to  the  various  occurrences  of  the  word  ; 
for  in  no  instance  is  his  observation  verified.  Did  he  suppose  that  the 
word,  in  its  appropriation  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  received  this  new 
meaning  ?  If  he  did,  he  supposes  what  is  absurd,  and  what  cannot  be 
exemplified  in  any  word  in  the  Bible.  If  words  could  receive  such  an 
arbitrary  appropriation  in  Scripture,  the  Book  of  God  would  not  be  a 
revelation.  Words  must  be  used  in  Scripture  in  the  sense  in  which  they 
are  understood  by  those  who  speak  the  language,  otherwise  the  Bible 
would  be  a  barbarian  both  to  the  learned  and  to  the  unlearned.  "Baptize," 
he  says,  "  is  a  dyer's  word."     Baptize  is  not  a  dyer's  word.     Jiapto,  in  a 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  23 

secondary  sense,  signifies  to  dye ;  but  baptizo  never  does.  It  is  strictly 
univocal.  What  a  ridiculous  thing  to  suppose  that,  by  immersion  in 
pure  water,  Christians  received  a  discriminating  hue,  like  cloth  dipped 
in  the  dyer's  vat!  What  mark  does  it  impress?  Are  we  to  take  the 
explanation  of  the  import  of  an  ordinance  of  Christ  from  the  creations 
of  genius,  rather  than  from  the  explicit  declaration  of  the  Apostles? 
Such  a  meaning  the  word  in  question  never  has.  Such  a  combination 
of  primary  and  secondary  meaning  no  word  in  any  language  could 
have.  Such  a  meaning  has  nothing  in  the  ordinance  to  verify  it.  It 
is  infinitely  more  important  to  resist  such  explanations  of  baptism,  even 
though  their  authors  should  agree  with  us  with  respect  both  to  the 
mode  and  subjects  of  that  ordinance,  than  to  combat  the  opinion  of 
our  brethren  who  on  these  points  differ  from  us.  It  is  the  truth  itself, 
and  not  any  ritual  ordinance,  that  our  Lord  has  appointed  to  be  the 
bond  of  union  among  his  people.  A  disproportionate  zeal  for  baptism 
may  sometimes  lead  to  danger  of  seduction  from  the  Gospel,  by  frater- 
nizing with  its  corrupters,  from  agreement  with  them  in  a  favourite 
ordinance. 

"  Not  long  before  the  death  of  Professor  Porson,"  says  Dr.  Newman, 
"  I  went,  in  company  with  a  much  respected  friend,  to  see  that  cele- 
brated Greek  scholar  at  the  London  Institution.  I  was  curious  to  hear 
in  what  manner  he  read  Greek.  He  very  condescendingly,  at  my  re- 
quest, took  down  a  Greek  Testament,  and  read,  perhaps  twenty  verses 
in  one  of  the  gospels,  in  which  the  word  bapto  occurred.  I  said,  •  Sir, 
you  know  there  is  a  controversy  among  Christians  respecting  the  mean- 
ing of  that  word.'  He  smiled  and  replied,  *-  The  Baptists  have  the 
advantage  of  us !  He  cited  immediately  the  well-known  passage  in 
Pindar,  and  one  or  two  of  those  in  the  gospels,  mentioned  in  this  letter  ; 
I  inquired,  whether,  in  his  opinion,  baptizo  must  be  considered  equal 
to  bapto,  which,  he  said,  was  to  tinge,  as  dyers.  He  replied  to  this 
effect ;  that  if  there  be  a  difference,  he  should  take  the  former  to  be 
the  strongest.  He  fully  assured  me,  that  it  signified  a  total  immersion. 
This  conversation  took  place  August  27,  1807." 

I  should  like  to  know  in  what  respect  this  eminent  scholar  considered 
baptizo  to  be  a  stronger  term  to  denote  immersion,  than  its  primitive 
bapto.  I  wish  we  had  his  opinion  more  in  detail  on  this  subject.  As 
expressive  of  mode,  the  derivative  cannot  go  beyond  its  primitive.  As 
to  totality  of  immersion,  the  one  is  perfectly  equivalent  to  the  other. 
But,  as  I  observed  before,  bapto  has  two  senses,  and  baptizo  but  one ; 
and  therefore,  in  this  respect,  the  word  used,  with  respect  to  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism,  is  stronger  in  support  of  immersion,  as  being  univocal. 
Perhaps  this  was  the  meaning  of  the  professor.  The  additional  modify- 
ing meaning,  which  I  pointed  out  in  the  derivative,  adds  nothing  to  the 
strength  of  signification  as  to  mode,  though  it  sufficiently  accounts  for 
the  use  of  the  derivative  to  the  exclusion  of  the  primitive,  in  every 
instance,  with  respect  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 

The  just  and  most  obvious  method  of  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  a 
word,  is  to  examine  its  origin  and  use  in  the  language.  It  may  wander 
far  from  its  root,  but  if  that  root  is  known  with  certainty,  the  connexion 


24  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

may  still  be  traced.  The  derivative,  however,  may  reject  ideas  con- 
tained in  the  primitive,  or  it  may  receive  additional  ideas,  which  can 
be  learned  only  by  being  acquainted  with  its  history.  That  baptizo  is 
formed  from  bapto  is  a  thing  beyond  dispute.  But  as  I  have  shown 
that  they  are  not  perfectly  coincident  in  their  application,  I  shall  examine 
them  separately,  contrary  to  the  general  practice  of  writers  on  both 
sides  of  the  question.  I  shall  give  a  copious  list  of  examples,  as  it  is 
from  this  that  my  readers  will  be  enabled  independently  to  form  their 
own  judgment.  This  method  will,  doubtless,  appear  tedious  and  unin- 
teresting to  many ;  but  it  is  the  only  method  entitled  to  authority.  For 
a  writer  on  controverted  subjects  to  give  merely  his  own  opinion  of  the 
import  of  his  documents,  accompanied  with  a  few  examples  as  a  speci- 
men of  proof,  would  be  the  same  as  if  an  advocate  should  present  a 
judge  and  jury  with  his  own  views  of  evidence,  instead  of  giving  them 
all  his  facts  and  circumstances  in  detail,  to  enable  them  to  decide  with 
knowledge.  A  work  of  this  kind  is  not  for  amusement,  but  requires 
patience  and  industry  in  the  reader,  as  well  as  in  the  writer.  If  the 
one  has  ransacked  documents  to  most  readers  inaccessible,  to  collect 
evidence,  the  other  should  not  grudge  the  toil  of  examining  the  evidence, 
seeing  it  is  only  by  such  an  examination  that  he  can  have  the  fullest 
conviction  of  the  truth.  Is  the  meaning  of  this  word  to  be  eternally 
disputed  ?  If  one  party  says  that  it  has  this  meaning,  and  another  that, 
while  a  third  differs  from  both,  and  a  fourth  is  confident  that  all  three 
are  wrong,  what  method  can  legitimately  settle  the  controversy,  but  an 
actual  appeal  to  the  passages  in  which  it  is  to  be  found?  These  are 
the  witnesses,  whose  testimony  must  decide  this  question ;  and  conse- 
quently the  more  numerous  and  definite  the  examples,  the  more  authori- 
tative will  be  the  decision.  And  as  it  is  possible  to  tamper  with  evi- 
dence, the  witnesses  must  be  questioned  and  cross-questioned,  that  the 
truth  may  be  ascertained  without  a  doubt.  Instead,  therefore,  of  making 
an  apology  for  the.  number  of  my  examples,  and  the  length  of  the  obser- 
vations that  ascertain  their  meaning,  the  only  thing  I  regret  is,  that  I 
have  not  every  passage  in  which  the  word  occurs  in  the  Greek  language. 
Never  was  the  meaning  of  a  word  so  much  disputed  :  no  word  was  ever 
disputed  with  less  real  grounds  of  difficulty. 

Section  II. — As  it  has  been  supposed  by  some  to  be  a  generic  word, 
signifying  every  application  of  water  without  any  respect  to  mode,  I 
shall  first  give  a  specimen  of  examples,  showing  that  it  not  only  signifies 
mode,  but  that  the  idea  of  water  is  not  in  the  word  at  all.  The  nature 
of  the  fluid  is  not  expressed  in  the  verb,  but  is  expressed  or  understood 
in  its  regimen. 

Near  the  end  of  the  Sixth  Idyl  of  Theocritus,  the  word  is  applied  to 
the  dipping  of  a  vessel  in  honey.  "  Instead  of  water,  let  my  maid  dip 
her  pitcher  into  honey-combs." 

Here  such  abundance  of  honey  is  supposed,  that  in  the  morning,  the 
maid-servant,  instead  of  going  to  draw  water,  will  dip  her  pitcher  into 
honey-combs.  Not  water,  then,  but  honey,  is  the  substance,  with 
respect  to  which  the  verb  in  question  is  here  applied.     And  that  dipping 


THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  25 

is  the  mode  there  can  be  no  question.  It  would  be  absurd  to  speak  of 
pouring,  or  sprinkling,  or  washing,  or  wetting  an  urn  into  honey-combs. 

Aristotle  also  applies  it  to  the  dipping  of  hay  into  honey  for  the 
curing  the  flux  in  elephants.  "  Dipping  hay  into  honey,  they  give  it 
them  to  eat." — Hist.  Animal,  lib.  viii.  26.  Though  it  would  be  possible 
to  sprinkle  hay  with  honey,  yet  it  would  be  absurd  to  speak  of  sprinkling 
or  pouring  hay  into  honey.  The  preposition  eis,  with  which  the  verb  is 
connected,  forbids  it  to  be  translated  by  any  other  word  but  dip,  even 
were  it  possessed  of  different  significations. 

The  same  author,  in  his  Treatise  on  the  Soul,  applies  the  word  to  wax. 
"  If  one  dip  anything  into  wax,  it  is  moved  as  far  as  he  dips." — Lib.  iii. 
12.  This  surely  is  not  an  application  of  water.  Nor  can  the  mode  be 
any  other  than  dipping.  Neither  pouring  nor  sprinkling,  washing  nor 
wetting,  can  be  imported  here. 

In  the  last  line  of  the  First  Idyl  of  Moschus,  the  word  is  applied  to 
immersion  in  fire.  Speaking  of  the  gifts  of  Cupid,  it  is  said,  "  For  they 
are  all  dipped  in  fire."  This  is  a  baptism  in  fire,  and,  beyond  dispute, 
dipping  was  the  mode. 

JElian  applies  the  word  to  ointment :  Stephanon  eis  mnron  bapsas. — 
Lib.  xiv.  cap.  xxxix.     "  Having  dipped  a  crown  into  ointment." 

The  learned  friend  who  writes  the  Appendix  to  Mr.  Ewing's  Essay  on 
Baptism,  translates  this  example  thus  :  "  Having  tinged  (imbued  or 
impregnated)  with  precious  ointment  a  crown  (or  garland), — the  crown 
was  woven  of  roses."  This  translation,  however,  is  not  made  on  sound 
principles  of  interpretation.  It  rests  on  no  basis.  The  author  has  not 
produced  one  instance  in  which  the  word  bapto  incontestably  and  con- 
fessedly must  signify  to  imbue,  except  in  the  sense  of  dyeing.  To  tinge 
a  crown  of  flowers,  is  not  to  imbue  it  with  additional  fragrance,  but  to 
colour  it.  The  author  violates  both  the  Greek  and  the  English.  When 
we  speak  of  the  tinge  of  a  flower,  we  refer  to  its  colour,  not  to  its  per- 
fume. To  tinge  with  ointment  to  give  a  fragrant  smell,  is  not  an  English 
expression.  The  translation  labours  under  another  disease.  Eis  muron 
cannot  be  translated  with  ointment,  but  must  be  rendered  into  ointment. 
To  tinge  into  ointment  is  a  solecism.  The  verb  then  cannot  here 
be  translated  tinge,  or  imbue,  or  impregnate,  even  though  it  had  these 
significations  in  other  places.  The  expression  cannot  bear  any  other 
translation  than — "  He  dipped  the  crown  into  ointment."  The  learned 
writer  thinks  it  improbable  that  a  crown  of  roses  would  be  dipped  in 
viscid  oil  in  order  to  improve  its  fragrance.  I  admit  that  it  would  not 
be  to  my  taste.  But  does  the  gentleman  forget  that  it  was  the  oddity 
of  the  thing  that  induced  the  historian  to  mention  it?  Had  it  been  a 
common  thing,  it  would  not  have  had  a  place  in  ^Elian's  anecdotes. 
The  person  to  whom  it  was  presented,  observed  that  he  accepted  it  as  a 
token  of  the  good-will  of  the  giver,  but  that  the  natural  fragrance  of  the 
flower  was  corrupted  by  art.  It  is  no  improvement  to  gild  a  statue 
of  exquisite  workmanship.  Shall  we,  therefore,  force  the  words  of  the 
historians,  that  assert  this  of  a  certain  Roman  emperor,  to  assume 
another  sense  ?  Shall  we  say,  that,  as  it  was  no  improvement  to  the  statue 
to  be  gilded,  the  language  must  signify  merely  that  it  was  washed  ?     To 

4 


26  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

proceed  on  such  principles  of  interpretation,  would  render  the  precise 
meaning  of  language  utterly  unattainable.  It  is  absurd  and  chimerical 
in  the  highest  degree.  In  some  points  of  view,  I  respect  this  writer 
very  much.  But  he  reasons  without  first  principles,  and  therefore,  has 
no  basis  for  his  conclusions.  He  is  extensively  acquainted  with  Greek 
literature;  but  had  he  all  the  writings  of  the  ancients  in  his  memory, 
he  cannot  be  a  critic,  so  long  as  he  multiplies  the  meanings  of  words  in 
an  arbitrary  manner,  according  to  his  view  of  particular  exigencies.  In 
his  very  next  example,  he  makes  the  word  bapto  signify  to  purify,  from 
a  different  exigency.  Jamblichus,  in  his  Life  of  Pythagoras,  relates,  as 
one  of  the  directions  of  the  philosopher  to  his  disciples, — oude  cis  pcrir- 
rantcrion  embaptcin,  which  the  writer  of  the  Appendix  translates,  "  not 
to  purify  in  the  perirranterion."  Here,  again,  he  proceeds  without  first 
principles.  He  has  not  alleged  one  instance  in  which  the  verb  must 
signify  to  purify.  He  has,  then,  no  ground-work  on  which  to  rest 
this  assumption.  And  the  preposition  eis,  occurring  here  both  sepa- 
rately and  in  conjunction  with  the  verb,  determines  that  the  action  of 
the  verb  was  directed  into  the  perirranterion,  or  basin.  Besides,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  they  did  not  purify  in  it,  but  out  of  it.  Persons  sprinkled 
at  the  door  of  a  Roman  Catholic  church  are  not  said  to  be  purified  in 
the  vessel  that  contains  the  holy  water.  But  the  writer  alleges  that  the 
perirranterion  was  too  small  for  dipping.  Very  true,  if  it  is  meant  that 
it  was  too  small  to  dip  the  body  in ;  but  it  was  not  too  small  to  dip 
the  thing  that  is  here  understood  to  be  dipped,  that  is,  the  sprinkling 
instrument.  Had  the  writer  considered  that  the  phrase  is  elliptical,  as 
referring  to  a  thing  so  well  known  that  the  regimen  of  the  verb  is 
understood  without  being  expressed,  he  would  have  had  no  necessity 
for  giving  a  new  and  an  unauthorised  meaning  to  the  word  bapto.  In 
the  next  direction  given  by  Jamblichus,  we  have  a  similar  ellipsis. 
"  Nor  to  bathe  in  a  bath,"  that  is,  nor  to  bathe  the  body  in  a  bath.  We 
ourselves  use  the  same  ellipsis.  Pythagoras  prohibited  these  things  to 
his  disciples,  because  it  was  not  certain  that  all  who  had  fellowship  with 
them  in  the  perirranterion  and  bath  were  pure.  Do  not  dip  in  the 
perirranterion ;  do  not  use  the  perirranterion ;  do  not  dip  the  sprinkling 
instrument  in  order  to  purify.  Nothing  can  be  more  unphilosophical 
than  the  conduct  of  this  writer.  As  often  as  he  meets  a  difficulty,  he 
gives  a  new  meaning  to  suit  the  situation.  Now,  though  I  could  make 
no  sense  of  the  passage  at  all,  I  would  resolutely  refuse  to  adopt  any 
meaning  but  one  that  the  word  confessedly  has  in  some  other  place.  It 
is  not  enough  to  say  that  such  a  translation  will  make  sense;  it  must  be 
the  sense  that  the  word  is  known  to  express. 

Another  difficulty  with  respect  to  a  passage  in  Suidas  de  Hierocle, 
induces  this  writer  to  translate  bapto,  to  wet.  He  might  as  well  trans- 
late it,  to  dry.  A  person  was  scourged  before  the  tribunal,  "  and, 
flowing  with  blood,  having  wetted  the  hollow  of  his  hand,  he  sprinkles 
it  on  the  judgment  seat."  The  word,  however,  never  signifies  to  wet ; 
and  even  this  translation  does  not  suit  the  writer's  own  commentary. 
He  explains  it  as  referring  to  the  catching  of  the  blood  flowing  from 
his  wounds,  or  letting  the  pouring  blood  fill  the  hollow  of  his  hand.     To 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  27 

wet  is  far  enough  from  representing  such  a  process.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  word  bapsas  is  here  to  be  translated  in  its  usual  sense. 
"  And  having  dipped  the  hollow  of  his  hand,  he  sprinkles  the  tribunal." 
It  may  be  difficult  to  conceive  the  process,  but  of  the  meaning  of  the 
expression  there  can  be  no  doubt.  If  the  blood  was  flowing  down  his 
body,  he  might  strike  the  palm  of  his  hand  on  his  skin,  and  gather  up 
the  blood  in  the  hollow  of  his  hand.  Whatever  was  the  way  in  which 
the  operation  was  performed,  the  writer  calls  it  a  dipping  of  the  hollow 
of  his  hand. 

In  the  Nubes,  Aristophanes  represents  Socrates  as  ludicrously  dipping 
the  feet  of  a  flea  into  wax,  as  an  ingenious  expedient  to  measure  its  leap. 
"  Having  melted  the  wax,  he  took  the  flea  and  dipped  its  feet  into  the 
wax."  Here  the  liquid  is  wax,  and  the  mode  can  be  nothing  but 
dipping.  Such  an  instance  determines  the  meaning  of  the  word  beyond 
all  reasonable  controversy. 

But,  though  the  word  is  most  usually  and  properly  applied  to  fluids, 
it  is  often  applied  even  to  solids  that  are  penetrated.  Dionysius  of  Hali- 
carnassus  applies  it  to  the  thrusting  of  a  spear,  bapsas,  between  the  ribs 
of  a  man.  In  like  manner,  we  might  say  that  a  soldier  plunged  his 
sword  into  the  bowels  of  his  enemy. 

In  Matt.  xxvi.  23,  the  action  of  putting  down  the  hand  into  a  dish  is 
expressed  by  this  word,  when  the  hand  was  not  actually  immersed  in  the 
fluid  at  the  bottom.  "  Who  dippeth  his  hand  in  the  dish."  Now,  it  is 
true  that,  according  to  ancient  manners,  the  fingers  were  actually  dipped 
in  taking  up  food  from  the  dish ;  yet  it  is  quite  proper  to  speak  thus  of 
the  action  of  putting  down  the  hand  in  the  inside  of  a  bowl  or  dish.  An 
excise  officer  might  be  said  to  dip  a  vessel  even  when  empty  :  and  we 
speak  of  plunging  into  a  wood.  Miners  also  speak  of  the  dip  of  a  rock  as 
being  north  or  south,  by  referring  to  the  direction  of  its  sinking  or  slope. 

Lycophron  represents  Cassandra,  foretelling  the  death  of  Clytemnestra 
by  the  hand  of  her  own  son,  as  saying,  "  with  his  own  hand  he  shall  dip 
his  sword  into  the  viper's  bowels." 

Here  the  word  is  applied  to  the  penetrating  of  solids,  in  the  sense  of 
thrusting  or  piercing.  In  like  manner,  we  speak  of  burying  a  weapon 
in  the  bowels.  Pouring,  sprinkling,  washing,  have  no  countenance  here, 
but  are  entirely  excluded. 

Ajax  is  represented  by  Sophocles  as  dipping  his  sword  into  the  army 
of  the  Greeks.  In  all  such  instances,  there  is  a  figurative  stretch  of  the 
word  with  a  fine  effect  on  composition ;  but  the  whole  beauty  of  the 
expression  consists  in  the  reference  to  the  proper  and  modal  meaning  of 
the  term. 

Section  III. — Having  proved  the  application  of  the  word  to  mode, 
without  respect  to  the  nature  of  the  fluid,  I  shall  now  at  random  produce 
examples. 

In  the  Thirteenth  Idyl  of  Theocritus  we  have  an  example  of  it,  in  the 
account  of  the  drowning  of  the  boy  Hylas,  who  went  to  a  fountain  to 
draw  water  for  the  supper  of  Hercules  and  Telamon.  "  The  youth  held 
the  capacious  urn  over  the  water,  hasting  to  dip  it,"  &c.     Can  anything 


28  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

be  more  definite  than  this  ?  Can  any  one  be  at  a  loss  to  know  how  a 
pitcher  is  filled  with  water  at  a  fountain?  Can  an  unprejudiced  reader 
demand  a  clearer  example  than  this,  to  show  the  modal  meaning  of 
bapto  ?  Even  the  unlearned  reader  may  judge  for  himself  in  this  matter. 
Indeed,  from  the  connexion  in  which  the  word  is  found,  he  may,  in 
almost  all  the  examples,  judge  whether  the  translation  of  the  term  is 
natural  or  forced.  I  hope,  then,  the  unlearned  reader  will  not  pass  over 
even  this  part  of  the  subject  as  altogether  beyond  him. 

The  word  occurs  in  the  Hecuba  of  Euripides.  "  Take  a  vessel,  an- 
cient servant,  and  having  dipped  it  in  the  sea,  bring  it  hither." 

Dr.  Gale  informs  us,  that  the  explanation  of  the  word  in  this  place,  by 
one  of  the  Greek  scholiasts,  is — "Baptein  signifies  to  let  down  anything 
into  water,  or  any  other  liquid."  Can  we  wish  for  better  authority  for 
the  meaning  of  a  Greek  word? 

Aristophanes,  in  the  play  entitled  Eirene,  affords  us  an  example  of  the 
word :  "  Bring  the  torch,  that  I  may  take  and  dip  it." 

Dr.  Gale  observes,  that  the  Greek  Scholiast  and  Florent.  Christianus, 
preceptor  to  Henry  IV.  of  France,  refer  this  to  the  manner  of  purifying 
among  the  Greeks,  by  dipping  a  lighted  torch  in  water,  and  so  sprinkling 
the  persons  or  things  to  be  purified.  This  explains  the  Pythagorean 
precept,  quoted  in  Mr.  Ewing's  Appendix. 

Dr.  Gale  has  given  us  some  fragments  of  this  author,  preserved  by 
Harpocratian,  where  the  general  meaning  is  more  obscure,  but  in  which 
the  peculiar  meaning  of  this  word  is  not  at  all  doubtful.  "  When  I  have 
dipped,  I  will  cite  the  strangers  before  the  judges."  "  This  passage 
would  have  been  very  obscure,"  says  he,  "  and  I  do  not  know  whether 
anything  would  have  given  light  to  it,  if  Suidas  had  not  attempted  it ; 
for  I  take  this  to  be  the  passage  he  refers  to,  when  he  says,  '  when  I  have 
dipped  the  oar,'  &c,  which  helps  us  to  the  sense  of  the  word  bapsas,  in 
this  place,  though  it  does  not  clear  up  the  whole.  Or,  perhaps,"  says 
he,  "  it  may  be  a  metaphor  taken  from  the  dyers,  who  say,  for  instance, 
I  will  dip  it,  and  make  it  a  black."  Athenaeus  has  preserved  two  other 
fragments  of  the  same  author,  in  which  the  word  occurs;  one  is,  "what 
a  wretch  am  I,  to  be  thus  dipped  over  head  and  ears  in  brine,  like  a 
pickled  herring !"  We  have,  therefore,  the  authority  of  Suidas,  that 
baptein  applies  to  the  dipping  of  an  oar  in  the  water. 

Aristotle,  speaking  of  a  kind  of  fish,  says  :  "  They  cannot  bear  great 
changes,  as  the  immersion  of  them  into  cold  water,  even  in  summer." 
Can  anything  be  more  decisive?  We  could  not  speak  of  sprinkling, 
or  pouring,  or  wetting  a  fish  into  water. 

Speaking  of  the  remedy  for  the  bite  of  a  certain  kind  of  snake  in  Africa, 
he  says  :  "  Of  which  the  remedy  is  said  to  be  a  certain  stone,  which  they 
take  from  the  sepulchre  of  a  king  of  ancient  times,  and,  having  immersed 
it  in  wine,  drink  it."  Here  the  virtue  of  the  stone  is  supposed  to  be 
extracted  by  the  wine  in  which  it  is  dipped.  They  do  not  sprinkle  the 
stone  with  wine,  nor  pour  wine  upon  it,  but  they  dipped  the  stone,  and 
then  drank  the  wine  in  which  it  was  dipped.  Even  the  unlearned 
reader  can  be  at  no  loss  with  respect  to  the  mode  imported  by  the  word 
in  this  process. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  29 

The  same  author  applies  the  word  to  the  immersion  of  animals  in  a 
pool  of  Sicily,  which  had  the  property  of  resuscitating  them  when  put 
into  it  after  suffocation.  What  can  be  more  satisfactory  than  this?  If 
anything  can  be  more  decisive,  it  is  an  example  from  the  same  author, 
in  which  he  tells  us,  that  it  is  the  custom  of  some  nations  to  clip  their 
children  into  cold  water,  soon  after  birth,  in  order  to  harden  them. 

Herodotus  decisively  fixes  the  meaning  of  this  word,  when  he  applies 
it  to  the  Scythian  ceremony  of  dipping  certain  things  in  a  mixture  of 
blood  and  water,  in  concluding  an  alliance.  "  The  Scythians,  in  con- 
cluding a  league  with  any  one,  make  it  in  the  following  manner  : — Hav- 
ing poured  wine  into  an  earthen  vessel,  they  mingle  with  it  the  blood  of 
the  parties,  making  a  slight  incision  in  the  body  by  a  knife  or  a  sword. 
After  this,  they  dip  into  the  vessel  a  scimitar  and  arrows,  a  hatchet  and 
a  javelin.  When  they  have  done  this,  they  utter  many  imprecations ; 
and  they  who  make  the  league,  with  the  most  distinguished  of  the  com- 
pany, drink  the  mixture."  The  phrase  apobapsantes  es  ten  kulika,  can 
mean  nothing  but  clipping  in  the  hotel.  Pouring,  sprinkling,  ivashing, 
wetting,  and  all  other  fancies,  are  entirely  excluded. 

The  setting  of  a  constellation  is  termed,  by  Aratus,  clipping  in  the 
sea.  Is  there  any  doubt  with  respect  to  mode  in  this  example  ?  When 
the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  descend  below  our  horizon,  when  we  stand  on 
the  shore,  they  appear  to  dip  in  the  sea.  All  nations  speak  in  phrase- 
ology that  imports  this.     We  have  some  beautiful  examples  in  Virgil. 

The  same  author  applies  the  word,  just  in  our  manner,  to  the  setting 
sun  :  "  If  the  sun  clips  himself,  without  a  cloud,  into  the  western  sea." 

Again  he  says  :  "  If  the  crow  dips  his  head  into  the  river."  Can  any 
one  need  a  commentary  to  point  out  the  mode  imported  by  the  word  here? 

"  Constantine,"  says  Dr.  Gale,  "  observes,  from  an  epigram  of  Her- 
molaus,  He  dipped  his  pitcher  in  the  water.  The  mysterious  Lycophron 
affords  us  an  instance  parallel  to  this  in  Callimachus :  dipping  with 
strange  and  foreign  buckets."  And  again,  to  this  may  be  added  what 
Aristotle  says  in  his  Mechanical  Questions  :  "  The  bucket  must  be  first 
let  doivn,  or  dipped,  and  then  be  drawn  up  again,  when  it  is  full."  Can 
anything  be  supposed  more  specifically  to  express  dipping,  than  bapto, 
in  these  instances  ? 

Homer  employs  the  word  in  the  Odyssey,  in  a  situation  where  the 
meaning  cannot  be  doubted.  He  compares  the  hissing  of  the  eye  of 
Polyphemus,  when  bored  by  a  red-hot  stake,  to  the  hissing  of  the  water 
when  a  smith  dips  his  iron  in  order  to  temper  it. 

"  As  when  the  smith,  an  hatchet  or  large  axe, 
Tempering  with  skill,  plunges  the  hissing  blacre 
Deep  in  cold  water.    (Whence  the  strength  of  steel.)" 

Cowper. 

No  one  who  has  seen  a  horse  shod  will  be  at  a  loss  to  know  the  mode 
of  the  application  of  water  in  this  instance.  The  immersion  of  the  newly 
formed  shoe  in  water,  in  order  to  harden  the  metal,  is  expressed  by  the 
word  baptein.  An  instance  of  the  same  kind  we  have  in  the  Apocry- 
phal Book  of  Ecclesiasticus,  where  iron  heated  in  the  furnace  is  said  to 


30  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

be  tempered  by  immersion  in  water.  The  note  of  Didymus  on  the  place 
is :  "  the  dipping  of  red-hot  iron  in  cold  water  hardens  it." 

Anacreon,  in  his  Ode  on  the  Arrows  of  Cupid,  represents  them  as 
forged  by  Vulcan,  and  dipped  by  Venus  in  honey,  into  which  Cupid  put 
a  mixture  of  gall. 

The  manner  of  poisoning  arrows  by  dipping  their  points  in  the 
poisonous  matter,  sufficiently  explains  this.  Here  we  see,  also,  that 
this  word  applies  to  honey,  and  even  to  gall — to  poisoning  as  well  as  to 
washing. 

Herodotus,  speaking  of  a  custom  of  the  Egyptians,  employs  this  word 
in  a  sense  entirely  analogous  to  the  use  of  baptizein,  in  the  ordinance 
of  baptism.  He  applies  it  to  a  ceremonial  or  religious  purification  of 
the  person  and  garments,  by  immersion  in  a  river  after  defilement. 
"  The  Egyptians  consider  the  swine  so  polluted  a  beast,  that  if  any  one 
in  passing  touch  a  swine,  he  will  go  away  and  dip  himself  with  his  very 
garments,  going  into  the  river."  Here  is  a  religious  baptism,  for  the 
purpose  of  cleansing  from  defilement ;  and  it  is  by  immersion,  expressed 
by  baptein.  Can  any  one  require  a  more  definite  example?  The  per- 
son dips  himself;  therefore  it  is  bapto,  to  dip,  and  not  baptizo,  to  cause 
to  dip.  All  the  occurrences  of  the  word  in  the  Septuagint  are  confirma- 
tory of  this  view  of  its  meaning. 

Ex.  xii.  22.  "  And  ye  shall  take  a  bunch  of  hyssop,  and  dipping  it 
in  the  blood  which  is  at  the  door,"  &,c.  The  effect  of  the  thing  done 
is  not  washing  :  it  is  smearing.  The  mode  is  not  pouring  or  sprinkling, 
but  dipping. 

Lev.  iv.  6.  "  And  the  priest  shall  dip  his  finger  in  the  blood,  and 
sprinkle  of  the  blood,"  &ic.  Here  we  have  the  action  both  of  dipping 
and  sprinkling ;  and  bapto  applies  to  the  former,  while  raino  applies  to 
the  latter.     Can  anything  be  more  decisive  than  this? 

Lev.  iv.  17.  "  And  the  priest  shall  dip  his  finger  in  the  blood  of  the 
bullock,  and  sprinkle  it,"  &,c. 

Lev.  ix.  9.  "  And  he  dipped  his  finger  into  the  blood."  He  could 
not  sprinkle  or  pour  his  finger  into  the  blood. 

Lev.  xi.  32.  "It  must  be  put  into  water."  Literally,  "It  shall  be 
dipped  into  water."     This  cannot  admit  even  of  plausible  evasion. 

Lev.  xiv.  6.  "  And  shall  dip  them  and  the  living  bird  in  the  blood,"  &c. 

Dr.  Wall  has  asserted  that  the  word  bapsei  here,  cannot  be  understood 
dipping  all  over ;  for  the  blood  of  the  bird  in  the  basin  could  not  be 
enough  to  receive  the  living  bird,  and  the  cedar  wood,  and  the  scarlet, 
and  the  hyssop,  all  into  it.  To  this  the  answer  of  Dr.  Gale  is  perfectly 
satisfactory.  The  blood  of  the  slain  bird  was  received  in  a  vessel  of 
running  water,  in  which  mixture,  as  appears  from  verse  51,  the  things 
were  to  be  dipped.  It  may  be  added,  that  this  makes  the  figure  have  a 
beautiful  alrasion  to  the  double  efficacy  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ 
It  washes  as  well  as  atones ;  and  though  this  might  be  exhibited  by  sepa- 
rate dippings,  yet  the  union  is  seen  more  clearly  in  the  combination  of 
blood  and  water.  But  that  the  word  baptein  is  employed  when  only  a  part 
of  an  object  is  dipped,  is  most  freely  admitted  ;  and  the  same  thing  may 
be  said  of  the  very  word  dip  itself.  Thus  we  speak  of  dipping  a  pen  in  ink, 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  31 

when  only  the  point  of  the  pen  is  dipped.  What  should  we  say  of  the 
foreigner  who  should  allege  that  the  English  word  dip,  when  applied 
in  the  expression,  They  dipped  the  man  in  the  river,  does  not  necessarily 
imply  that  they  dipped  him  all  over,  because  he  finds  from  the  expression, 
dip  a  pen  in  ink,  it  is  applied  sometimes  when  only  a  part  is  dipped? 
Yet  grave  doctors,  when  they  criticise  in  a  dead  language,  make  them- 
selves such  fools !  and  their  folly  is  concealed  only  by  the  circumstance, 
that  the  language  is  dead  with  respect  to  which  they  make  their  silly 
observations.  Every  person  at  all  accustomed  to  philosophise  on  language, 
knows  that  such  a  figure  is  quite  common ;  but  that  it  never  alters  or 
affects  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word.  The  figure,  in  fact,  is  not  in  the 
verb,  but  in  its  regimen.  In  all  such  expressions,  both  bapto  and  dip 
have  their  proper  and  entire  significations,  and  express  mode,  as  fully  as 
when  there  is  no  figure.  The  expression,  dip  a  pen,  determines  mode  as 
clearly  as  when  the  object  is  sunk  to  the  bottom  of  the  sea,  never  to  arise. 
A  writer  must  be  perverse  indeed,  who  indulges  himself  in  such  quibbles ; 
yet  some  of  the  gravest  and  most  learned  writers  have  urged  this  objec- 
tion. It  must  be  observed,  that  Dr.  Wall,  though  he  is  a  friend  to  infant 
baptism,  is  decidedly  in  favour  of  immersion.  With  respect  to  all  such 
elliptical  phrases,  I  observe,  that  they  are  used  only  about  common  opera- 
tions, when  the  part  to  be  dipped  is  so  well  known  as  to  prevent  obscurity. 
But  granting  to  the  authors  of  this  objection  all  their  demands,  I  hope 
we  shall  find  them  dipping  at  least  a  part  of  the  body  of  the  person 
baptized.  It  is  strange  to  find  Christians  arguing  that  the  word,  though 
it  signifies  to  immerse,  may  be  applied  when  only  a  part  is  dipped ;  yet 
in  their  own  practice,  dipping  neither  in  whole  nor  in  part,  but  substitut- 
ing pouring  or  sprinkling  in  its  place. 

Lev.  xiv.  16.  "  That  the  priest  shall  dip  his  right  finger  in  the  oil 
that  is  in  his  left  hand,  and  shall  sprinkle  of  the  oil  with  his  finger  seven 
times  before  the  Lord."  Here,  also,  we  see  the  characteristic  distinction 
between  dippi?ig  and  sprinkling.  The  action  of  putting  the  oil  on  the 
finger  is  expressed  by  bapto ;  that  of  applying  it  to  the  object,  by  raino. 
The  word  occurs  again  in  the  51st  verse,  with  reference  to  the  same 
process  as  that  described  in  verse  6. 

Numb.  xix.  18.  "  And  a  clean  person  shall  take  hyssop,  and  dip  it 
in  the  water,  and  sprinkle  it  upon  the  house." 

Deut.  xxxiii.  24.  "  Let  him  dip  his  foot  in  oil."  Here  the  great 
abundance  of  oil  is  expressed  by  representing  the  possessor  as  dipping 
his  foot  in  it.  The  unlearned  reader  may  perceive,  that  in  all  these 
instances  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  question  is  so  clear  and  definite, 
that  even  our  translators,  who  were  no  practical  immersers,  render  it  as 
we  do.     Can  it  then  admit  a  doubt,  that  this  is  the  proper  rendering  ? 

Josh.  iii.  15.  "  And  as  they  that  bare  the  ark  were  come  unto  Jordan, 
and  the  feet  of  the  priests  that  bare  the  ark  were  dipped  in  the  brim  of 
the  water." 

Ruth  ii.  14.     "  Dip  thy  morsel  in  the  vinegar." 

1  Sam.  xiv.  27.  "  And  Jonathan  heard  not  when  his  father  charged 
the  people  with  the  oath ;  wherefore  he  put  forth  the  end  of  the  rod  that 
was  in  his  hand,  and  dipped  it  in  a  honey-comb."     Here  the  mode  is 


32  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

most  dcterminately  fixed.  He  stretched  forth  his  rod,  and  dipping  the 
point  of  it,  ate  the  honey  off  the  rod. 

2  Kings  viii.  15.  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  on  the  morrow  he  took 
a  thick  cloth,  and  dipped  it  in  water." 

Job  ix.  31.  What  our  translators  render,  "  yet  shalt  thou  plunge  me 
in  the  ditch,"  &c,  in  the  Greek  is,  Thou  hast  dipped  me  deeply  in  filth. 
Here  we  not  only  have  the  mode  signified  by  this  word,  but  evidence 
that  the  word  is  as  applicable  when  the  object  of  dipping  is  to  defile,  as 
when  the  object  is  to  wash.  It  denotes  the  mode  only,  without  any 
reference  to  the  intention  with  which  it  is  used. 

Psalm  Ixviii.  23.  "  That  thy  feet  may  be  dipped  in  the  blood  of  thine 
enemies,  and  the  tongue  of  thy  dogs  in  the  same."  Here  the  person  is 
supposed  to  wade  through  blood,  to  denote  the  great  slaughter. 

In  2  Mac.  i.  21,  the  word  is  used  to  signify  the  drawing  of  water  from 
a  deep  pit  (compare  verse  19) :  "He  ordered  them  to  draw,"  literally  dip. 

The  use  of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament  is  exactly  the  same  as  in 
the  examples  which  have  been  quoted  from  other  writers.  Matt.  xxiv.  23, 
has  already  been  referred  to.  The  same  transaction  is  related  Mark 
xiv.  20 :  "  It  is  one  of  the  twelve  that  dippeth  with  me  in  the  dish." 
John  xiii.  26,  relates  the  fact,  omitting  the  circumstance  that  the  betrayer 
was  dipping  with  him  in  the  dish,  and  giving  a  circumstance  omitted  by 
Matthew  and  Mark,  namely,  that  Jesus  pointed  out  the  betrayer  by 
giving  him  a  sop,  after  he  had  dipped  it.  The  word  here  refers  to  the 
dipping  of  the  bread  in  the  bitter  sauce.  Neither  pouring  nor  sprinkling 
could  have  any  place  here. 

Luke  xvi.  24.  "  And  he  cried  and  said,  Father  Abraham;  have  mercy 
on  me ;  and  send  Lazarus,  that  he  may  dip  the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water, 
and  cool  my  tongue." 

Rev.  xix.  13.  "  And  he  was  clothed  with  a  vesture  dipped  in  blood." 
The  glorious  Redeemer  is  here  represented  as  going  forth  to  the  de- 
struction of  his  enemies,  and,  as  an  emblem  of  his  work,  he  is  figured 
as  clothed  with  a  vesture  dipped  in  blood.  This  gives  the  most  awful 
image  of  the  approaching  slaughter.  Dr.  Gale,  indeed,  has  alleged  some 
reasons,  to  prove  that  we  have  not  here  the  genuine  reading.  "  The 
authority  of  Origen,"  says  he,  "  whose  writings  are  older  than  any  copies 
of  the  Old  Testament  we  can  boast  of,  and  therefore  that  he  described 
from  more  ancient  copies,  must  be  more  considerable  than  any  we  have. 
Now  he,  in  his  Commentary  on  St.  John's  Gospel,  cites  these  words  from 
ver.  11,  to  ver.  16,  inclusively,  almost  verbatim  as  they  are  in  our 
edition,  but  reads  sprinkled,  instead  of  dipped;  which  makes  this 
passage  nothing  to  our  purpose.  However,  I  should  not  think  this  single 
authority  of  Origen  sufficient  to  justify  my  altering  the  word;  but  I  have 
likewise  observed  that  the  Syriac  and  JEthiopic  versions,  which,  for 
their  antiquity,  must  be  thought  almost  as  valuable  and  authentic  as  the 
original  itself,  being  made  from  primitive  copies,  in  or  very  near  the 
times  of  the  apostles,  and  rendering  the  passage  by  words  which  signify 
to  sprinkle,  must  greatly  confirm  Origen's  reading  of  the  place,  and  very 
strongly  argue,  that  he  has  preserved  the  very  same  word  which  was  in 
the  autograph."     These  reasons,  however,  do  not  in  the  least  bring  the 


THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  33 

common  reading  into  suspicion  in  my  mind,  and  I  will  never  adopt  a 
reading  to  serve  a  purpose.  Misapprehension  of  the  meaning  of  the 
passage,  it  is  much  more  likely,  has  substituted  sprinkled  for  dipped. 
The  warrior  is  represented  as  going  out,  and  not  as  returning,  and  the 
garment  is  emblematically  dyed  to  represent  his  work  before  it  was 
begun.  Dr.  Cox's  reply  to  Mr.  Ewing's  observations  on  this  verse,  is  a 
triumphant  refutation  of  the  objection  which  misconception  has  founded 
on  this  passage,  and  must  silence  it  for  ever. 

Section  IV. — Before  I  proceed  farther,  I  shall  advert  to  some  exam- 
ples in  which  bapto  has  been  supposed  to  signify  to  toash ;  but  in  all  of 
which  it  retains  its  own  peculiar  meaning. 

Aristophanes  applies  the  word  to  the  cleansing  of  wool  in  warm  water ; 
must  not  wash  or  cleanse,  then,  be  one  of  its  meanings  ?  By  no  means. 
Let  us  examine  his  words :  "  First  they  dip  the  wool  in  warm  water, 
according  to  ancient  custom."  What  is  asserted  is,  that  they  dip,  or 
immerse,  or  plunge  the  wool  into  warm  water.  Washing  is  the  consequence 
of  the  operation,  but  is  not  the  thing  expressed  by  the  verb.  It  might 
be  rendered  by  wash  in  a  free  translation ;  but  this  would  be  to  give  the 
sense,  not  an  exact  version  of  the  words.  Had  he  used  the  word  pluno, 
then  the  washing  would  have  been  expressed,  and  the  dipping  would 
have  been  necessarily  supposed.  Both  these  words  might  be  used  for  the 
same  thing  in  many  situations ;  still  each  of  them  would  have  its  peculiar 
meaning.  Accordingly,  Suidas  and  Phavorinus  interpret  baptousi  here 
by  plunousi.  It  argues  very  shallow  philosophy,  however,  to  suppose, 
that  on  this  account  the  words  are  perfectly  synonymous.  We  could, 
even  in  our  own  language,  say  indifferently,  that  sheep  are  dipped  in  the 
river  before  they  are  shorn,  or  sheep  are  washed  in  the  river  before  they 
are  shorn,  yet  this  does  not  make  dip  and  ivash  synonymous  in  our 
language. 

Words  may  be  so  far  equivalent,  as  in  certain  situations  to  be  equally 
fitted  to  fill  the  same  place,  when  each  continues  even  in  such  situations 
to  have  its  characteristic  meaning.  Ignorance  of  this  important  prin- 
ciple in  the  application  of  words,  has  led  writers  into  the  greatest  absur- 
dities, in  determining  the  meaning  of  terms  in  a  dead  language.  When- 
ever they  find  one  word  used  in  explanation  of  another,  or  where  another 
would  serve  the  purpose,  they  think  the  words  are  synonymous.  This 
is  a  false  first  principle,  and  all  reasonings  founded  on  it  must  be  un- 
sound. Yet  this  is  the  most  plausible  argument  that  Dr.  Wall  and 
others  can  find  to  prove  that  bapto  signifies  to  roash.  Suidas  and  Pha- 
vorinus explain  it  by  pluno,  therefore  they  think  it  must  signify  to  wash. 
To  convince  the  unlearned  reader  of  the  fallacy  of  this  principle,  let  him 
open  an  English  dictionary,  and  try  if  all  the  words  given  in  explanation 
are  strictly  synonymous  with  those  which  they  are  used  to  explain.  Yet 
on  this  principle,  it  is  supposed  to  be  irresistibly  evident  that  bapto  sig- 
nifies to  wash,  because  baptism  is  referred  to  in  the  expression,  "  having 
your  bodies  washed  with  pure  water,"  Heb.  x.  22.  When  a  person  is 
dipped  in  pure  water,  he  is  washed;  still  dipping  and  washing  are  two 
different  things.     Baptism  is  a  washing,  not  from  the  meaning  of  the 

5 


34  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

word  itself,  for  as  far  as  that  is  concerned,  it  might  be  a  defilement ; 
but  because  it  is  an  an  immersion  in  pure  water. 

The  passage  from  Herodotus,  in  which  he  represents  swine  as  an 
abomination  to  the  Egyptians,  coincides  entirely  with  this  doctrine.  If' 
an  Egyptian  touches  a  swine,  he  runs  immediately  to  the  river  and  dips 
himself.  That  he  dips  himself,  is  the  thing  expressed ;  but  as  the  pur- 
pose of  the  dipping  is  cleansing,  or  religious  washing,  the  same  fact 
might  be  substantially  reported  by  saying,  that  he  washed,  or  cleansed, 
or  purified,  or  bathed  himself  in  the  river.  Yet  bapto  no  more  signifies 
to  wash  or  purify  here,  than  it  does  in  the  translation  of  the.  LXX.,  with 
respect  to  Job,  when  applied  to  plunging  in  filth.  The  word  has  here 
its  own  peculiar  meaning,  and  makes  not  the  smallest  intrusion  into  the 
province  of  louo.  Mr.  Ewing's  remarks  on  this  passage  is  truly  surpris- 
ing. The  Egyptian,  it  seems,  performed  this  operation  on  himself,  but 
the  Christian  is  baptized  by  another.  And  can  Mr.  Ewing  really  think 
that  this  is  anything  to  the  purpose  ?  Was  it  ever  supposed  that  it  is 
from  the  verb  bapto  that  we  are  to  learn  whether  a  believer  is  to  dip 
himself,  or  to  be  dipped  by  another,  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism  ?  It  is 
enough  that  the  word  informs  of  the  mode  :  other  things  must  be  learned 
from  their  proper  sources.  From  Herodotus,  in  the  story  of  the  Egyptian, 
we  may  learn  the  meaning  of  the  word;  but  from  Scripture,  we  must 
learn  whether  the  operation  is  to  be  performed  to  the  believer  by  him- 
self, or  by  another.  Was  ever  anything  so  unreasonable,  as  to  expect  a 
perfect  coincidence  between  an  ordinance  of  Christ,  and  a  superstitious 
custom  of  heathens?  The  meaning  of  the  word  is  quite  unaffected, 
whether  the  person  dips  himself  or  is  dipped  by  another.  Does  Mr. 
Ewing  doubt  whether  bapto  can  apply  when  the  operation  respects  a 
thing  different  from  the  agent  ?  This  cannot  be  his  meaning,  for  almost 
all  the  examples  of  its  use  refer  to  such  cases.  Does  he  mean,  that 
among  the  innumerable  things  which  are  said  to  be  dipped,  as  expressed 
by  bapto,  a  human  being  is  not  to  be  found,  except  in  the  case  of  one 
performing  the  operation  for  himself?  If  this  is  his  meaning,  it  is  not 
to  the  purpose ;  for  though  an  example  could  not  be  found  in  which  one 
person  is  said  to  dip  another,  the  command  of  Christ  warrants  the 
practice,  and  the  word  bapto  will  apply  to  one  thing  as  well  as  another. 
But,  as  Dr.  Cox  has  observed,  there  is  an  example  in  the  case  of  the 
drowning  of  Aristobulus,  which  we  shall  afterwards  consider  :  and  we 
have  already  seen  an  example  in  the  Scythian  custom  of  immersing  their 
new-born  infants.  But  I  will  never  consent  that  any  such  example  is 
necessary.  The  demand  is  founded  on  a  false  principle  of  criticism. 
A  passage  from  the  Hymns  of  Callimachus,  in  which  this  word  is  mis- 
understood by  some,  is  set  in  its  proper  light  by  Dr.  Gale.  "  My 
opinion,"  says  he,  "  is  confirmed  also  by  Callimachus,  in  his  Hymns, 
when  he  says  :  '  Ye  Grecian  watermen  (they  furnished  private  houses 
with  water,  as  some  do  among  us),  dip  not  your  vessels  in  the  river 
Inachus  to-day.'  The  hymn  was  made  on  the  solemnizing  the  festival 
of  washing  the  statue  of  Pallas ;  which  ceremony  was  performed  by 
persons  set  apart  for  that  purpose,  in  the  river  Inachus,  a  little  before 
day ;  from  this  river  the  inhabitants  were  usually  supplied  with  water, 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  35 

which  makes  the  poet,  in  veneration  to  the  goddess,  charge  the  water- 
men here  not  to  dip  their  pitchers  in  the  river  on  that  day." 

This,  however,  is  of  importance,  rather  for  the  understanding  of  the 
poet,  than  for  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  question.  For 
whether  the  purpose  of  the  waterman  was  to  wash  their  pitchers  by 
dipping  them,  or  to  fill  them  by  dipping  them,  dipping  is  the  only  thing 
expressed  by  the  word  bapto. 

In  Dan.  iv.  30,  and  v.  21,  this  word  is  rendered  by  zoet  in  our  version, 
which  may  seem  an  insuperable  objection  to  the  uniformity  of  its  signi- 
fication of  mode.  This  instance  is  thought  to  support  their  opinion,  who 
assert  that  bapto  is  a  generic  word,  denoting  the  bringing  of  anything  into 
a  state  of  wetness.  But  there  is  here  no  exception  to  the  peculiar 
meaning  of  the  word.  The  term  wet  gives  the  general  sense  of  the 
passage  well  enough,  but  it  is  by  no  means  a  translation  of  the  word  in  the 
original,  nor  of  that  employed  by  the  Septuagint.  It  ought  to  have  been 
rendered  according  to  the  usual  modal  meaning,  which,  instead  of 
being  harsh,  would  have  found  corresponding  expressions  in  all  lan- 
guages. By  employing  a  general  word,  our  translators  in  this  instance 
have  lost  the  peculiar  beauty  of  the  original,  without  in  the  least  adding 
to  the  perspicuity.  The  words  of  the  Septuagint  are,  "  His  body  was 
immersed  in  the  dew."  In  the  translation,  "  His  body  was  wet  with  the 
dew,"  the  general  effect  is  the  same,  but  the  eloquence  of  expression  has 
evaporated.  But  a  soulless  critic  will  reply,  "  there  was  here  no  literal 
immersion  ;  the  word  cannot  then  be  used  in  that  sense."  Were  we  to 
pass  through  the  poets,  conforming  their  language  to  this  observation, 
what  havoc  should  we  make  of  their  beauties !  How  dull  and  lifeless 
would  become  their  animated  expressions !  I  have  seen  no  explication 
of  this  passage  that  appears  to  develop  the  principle  of  this  application, 
though  the  general  sense  of  the  passage  is  well  enough  understood.  As 
the  theory  of  generic  meaning  in  bapto.  including  every  application  of 
water  without  reference  to  mode,  has  no  other  plausible  foundation  but 
the  common  version  of  this  passage,  it  will  be  of  importance  to  settle  the 
question,  though  it  should  occupy  some  pages. 

Dr.  Gale  affords  us  many  materials  to  prove  that  the  word  has  here 
its  ordinary  sense ;  but  I  think  he  fails  in  his  attempt  to  analyze  the 
expression.  His  observations  on  the  copiousness  of  the  eastern  dews  are 
much  to  the  purpose  ;  apart  of  which  I  shall  transcribe.  "  Philosophi- 
cally speaking,"  says  he,  "  the  hottest  climates  and  clearest  skies  naturally 
abound  most  with  dew,  which  is  also  confirmed  by  constant  experience. 
It  is  commonly  known  to  be  so  in  her  Majesty's  Leeward  Islands  in 
America, — where  one  season  of  the  year,  when  they  have  no  rains  for  a 
considerable  time  together,  the  fruits  of  the  earth  would  be  burned  up, 
were  it  not  for  the  dews  that  fall  plentifully  in  the  night.  That  incom 
parable  mathematician,  Captain  Halley,  observed,  when  making  sorrv 
experiments  in  St.  Helena,  that  the  dews  fell  in  such  abundance  as  to 
make  his  paper  too  wet  to  write  on,  and  his  glasses  unfit  for  use  without 
frequent  wiping.  And  as  to  Africa,  in  particular,  where  part  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar's dominions  lay,  Pliny  tells  us  the  nights  were  very  dewy. 
Egypt  has  little  or  no  rain;   but  is  fed  by  the  overflowing  of  the  Nile, 


36  THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM. 

and  by  constant  nocturnal  dews ;  and  Nebuchadnezzar  kept  his  court 
in  a  country  of  near  the  same  latitude,  and  consequently  of  the  like 
temperament." 

This  is  very  useful  as  a  ground-work  for  the  analysis  of  the  expression  ; 
but  it  does  not  in  the  least  give  a  reason  why  a  wetting  with  a  copious 
fall  of  dew  is  called  an  immersion.  Had  this  monarch  been  wet  even  by 
a  shower-bath,  why  is  his  wetting  called  a  dipping  1  If  all  the  water  in 
the  ocean  had  fallen  on  him,  it  would  not  have  been  a  literal  immersion. 
The  mode  would  still  be  wanting.  Our  opponents,  if  they  know  their 
business,  may  admit  this,  and  still  deny  the  consequence  which  this 
writer  draws  from  it.  Nor  does  this  gentleman  succeed  better  in  ana- 
lyzing the  expression.  "  Hence  it  appears  very  clear,"  says  he,  "  that 
both  Daniel  and  his  translators  designed  to  express  the  great  dew 
Nebuchadnezzar  should  be  exposed  to,  more  emphatically,  by  saying,  he 
should  lie  in  dew,  and  be  covered  with  it  all  over,  as  if  he  had  been 
dipped ;  for  that  is  so  much  like  being  dipped,  as  at  most  to  differ  no 
more  than  being  in,  and  being  put  in ;  so  that  the  metaphor  is  easy,  and 
not  at  all  strained."  But  Daniel  does  not  say  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
should  lie  in  dew,  and  be  covered  with  it  all  over.  Had  this  been  his 
expression,  it  would  have  been  quite  literal.  Dr.  Gale  absurdly  supposes 
that  bapto  means  to  cover  with  water  without  reference  to  mode,  and  at 
the  same  time  metaphorically  alludes  to  dipping.  Neither  Daniel  nor 
his  translators  say,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  should  be  as  wet  as  if  he  were 
dipped;  for  if  that  had  been  the  expression,  there  could  have  been  no 
dispute  about  it. 

Dr.  Cox's  reply  to  Mr.  Ewing,  with  respect  to  the  analysis  of  this 
expression,  appears  to  me  not  quite  satisfactory.  "  It  was,"  says  Mr. 
Ewing,  "popped  upon,  not  even  by  effusion,  but  by  the  gentlest  distillation 
that  is  known  in  nature."  "  To  this  it  has  been  generally  replied,"  says 
Dr.  Cox,  "  and  I  think  satisfactorily,  that  a  body  exposed  to  eastern 
dews  would  be  as  wet  as  if  plunged  into  water."  Now,  this  is  valid,  as 
proving  that  the  body  ought  to  be  completely  wetted  in  baptism ;  but  it 
leaves  the  mode  unaccounted  for.  Mr.  Ewing  might  grant  this,  yet  still 
insist,  from  this  passage,  that  mode  is  not  contained  in  the  word.  Many 
persons  do  plead  for  a  copious  effusion  of  water  in  baptism  ;  and  they 
might  yield  to  the  above  reasoning,  still  contending  that  the  mode  is  not 
essential,  or  that  it  is  not  immersion.  The  most  complete  wetting  by 
dew  or  rain  is  not  dipping  literally.  If  we  would  fairly  meet  this 
passage,  we  must  show,  not  merely  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was  completely 
wetted,  but  that  a  wetting  in  one  mode  may  be  figuratively  designated 
by  the  words  that  properly  denote  a  wetting  in  another  mode.  I  will 
not  hide  one  particle  of  the  strength  of  our  opponents'  cause,  nor  an 
apparent  weakness  in  our  own.  Let  Christianity  itself  sink,  rather  than 
use  one  insufficient  argument. 

Dr.  Cox  continues :  "  The  passage,  however,  merits  a  little  more 
detailed  explanation.  The  verb  is  used  in  the  passive  voice,  in  the 
second  aorist,  and  the  indicative  mood,  implying  consequently  that  the 
action  was  past,  and  indefinite  as  to  time."  It  does  not  seem  to  me,  that 
the  voice,  tense,  and  mood  of  the  verb,  have  any  concern  in  this  debate. 


THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  37 

In  all  voices,  tenses,  and  moods,  a  verb  must  have  its  characteristic 
meaning.  "It  does  not,"  continues  Dr.  Cox,  "imply  the  manner  in 
which  the  effect  was  produced,  but  the  effect  itself;  not  the  mode  by 
which  the  body  of  the  king  was  wetted,  but  its  condition,  as  resulting 
from  exposure  to  the  dew  of  heaven."  Without  doubt,  the  verb  expresses 
mode  here  as  well  as  anywhere  else.  To  suppose  the  contrary  gives  up 
the  point  at  issue,  as  far  as  mode  is  concerned.  This  in  fact  makes 
bapto  signify  simply  to  wet,  without  reference  to  mode. 

Dr.  Cox  gives  an  illustration,  but  unfortunately  it  can  give  no  relief, 
as  it  fails  in  an  essential  point  of  similarity.  "Suppose,"  says  he,  "by 
way  of  illustration,  we  select  another  word,  and  put  it  into  the  same 
voice  and  tense;  as  eblabe  npo  sou,  'he  was  hurt  by  you.'  It  is  obvious 
that  this  representation  might  refer  to  an  injury  done  long  ago,  and 
would  predicate  nothing  of  the  manner  in  which  it  was  inflicted,"  &c. 
Very  true.  Nothing  of  manner  is  here  expressed,  and  for  an  obvious 
reason,  nothing  of  manner  is  expressed  by  the  verb  blapto.  But  will 
Dr.  Cox  grant  that  this  is  the  case  with  the  verb  bapto?  If  he  does, 
about  what  is  he  contending?  Bapto  not  only  necessarily  implies  mode, 
but  literally  expresses  nothing  but  mode.  Instead  of  literally  denoting 
wetting  in  any  manner,  it  does  not  literally  include  wetting  at  all.  This 
is  as  true  in  this  passage,  as  it  is  in  any  other.  Mode  is  as  much  ex- 
pressed here,  as  it  is  in  the  commission  of  our  Lord  to  the  apostles. 
The  difference  is,  that  the  thing  that  is  here  called  an  immersion  was 
so  only  figuratively.  I  claim  this  passage  as  much  as  I  do  the  plainest 
example  in  the  New  Testament. 

That  the  word  in  question  ought  here,  as  in  all  other  places,  to  be 
rendered  immerse,  is  necessary  from  the  following  reasons : 

1.  It  is  utterly  unwarrantable  to  give  a  meaning  to  the  word  which  it 
cannot  be  shown  to  have  in  some  unquestionable  examples.  To  assign  a 
meaning  not  so  justified,  is  to  reason  without  first  principles — to  build 
without  a  foundation.  This  suits  the  visionary,  but  can  never  be  the 
resource  of  true  criticism.  Now,  the  whole  history  of  the  word  does 
not  afford  a  single  example  in  which  it  must  signify  to  wet.  Whatever, 
then,  may  be  the  principle  on  which  this  icetting  of  Nebuchadnezzar  is 
called  immersion,  immersion  it  is  called. 

2.  This  is  confirmed,  as  Dr.  Cox  has  observed,  by  the  original.  The 
word  in  the  original  signifies  to  dip;  if  so,  why  should  not  the  Greek 
word  by  which  it  is  translated  have  its  own  peculiar  meaning?  How 
can  mode  be  excluded,  if  it  is  in  both  the  original  and  the  translation? 

3.  The  Syriac  version,  as  Dr.  Gale  remarks,  renders  the  original  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  LXX.  "  The  authors  of  the  ancient  and  valu- 
able Syriac  version,"  says  he,  "  who  were  of  the  neighbourhood  of  Baby- 
lon, and  well  enough  acquainted  with  the  large  dews  in  those  parts,  and 
endeavored  to  give  an  exact  literal  translation,  have  shunned  this  error." 
If,  then,  the  Syriac  translators  have  rendered  the  original  by  a  term  that 
signifies  to  dip,  why  should  not  bapto  in  the  translation  of  the  LXX. 
have  the  same  meaning?  To  me  the  reasoning  of  Dr.  Gale  is  entirely 
satisfactory. 

4.  The  expression  is  intelligible  and  beautiful  in  our  own  language, 


38  THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM. 

and,  I  have  no  doubt,  might  be  exemplified  in  all  languages.  Alluding 
to  the  flood,  we  might  say,  that  God  immersed  the  world  in  water ;  or  of 
a  rock  when  covered  by  the  tide,  that  it  is  immersed  in  the  sea.  Do  we 
not  every  day  hear  similar  phraseology?  The  man  who  has  been 
exposed  to  a  summer-plump  will  say  that  he  has  got  a  complete  dipping. 
This  is  the  very  expression  of  Daniel.  One  mode  of  wetting  is  figured 
as  another  mode  of  wetting,  by  the  liveliness  of  the  imagination.  The 
same  figure  meets  us  almost  in  every  page  of  the  poets.  Virgil  will 
supply  us  with  instances  in  abundance  : — 

"Postquamcollapsi  cineres,  et  flamma  quievit; 
Relliquias  vino  et  bibulam  lavere  favillam." 

They  washed  the  relics,  and  the  warm  spark,  in  wine. 

Who  washes  ashes,  and  bones,  and  embers?  On  the  principle  of 
Mr.  Ewing's  criticism,  we  might,  from  this  passage  of  Virgil,  deny  that 
lavo  properly  signifies  to  wash,  and  assert  that  it  denotes  to  drench,  to 
quench,  to  wet,  to  moisten,  &c.  What  avails  it,  then,  to  tell  us  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  was  wet  with  the  gentlest  distillation  in  nature?  The 
effect  of  that  gentle  operation  may  be  so  like  that  of  another  more  violent 
operation,  that  the  language  of  the  imagination  may  designate  the  more 
gentle  by  the  characteristic  denomination  of  the  more  violent.  A  ivctting 
by  dew  may,  in  the  language  of  animation,  be  called  a  dipping.  Lan- 
guage violates  the  laws  of  natural  philosophy,  as  well  as  of  logic,  without 
scruple ;  or  rather  it  does  not  at  all  own  subjection  to  them.  It  owes 
allegiance  only  to  the  laws  of  mind.  Things  most  absurd,  if  explained 
according  to  the  laws  of  natural  philosophy,  and  most  untrue,  according 
to  the  laws  of  logic,  are  true  and  beautiful  when  tried  by  their  proper 
standard.  Why  did  Virgil  make  such  an  application  of  the  word  lavo 
here?  Was  it  for  lack  of  proper  terms  to  express  his  ideas?  Of 
these  he  had  abundance.  Was  it  to  deceive  or  puzzle?  Neither;  for 
his  meaning  appears  at  a  glance.  He  uses  lavo  for  the  same  reason  that 
the  Holy  Spirit,  by  Daniel,  used  the  word  signifying  to  immerse,  when 
speaking  of  the  wetting  of  Nebuchadnezzar  by  the  dew,  to  enliven  the 
style.  Every  reader  must  observe  that  much  of  the  beauty  of  this  pas- 
sage in  Virgil  is  owing  to  the  use  of  the  word  lavo  in  this  figurative, 
catachrestic  sense.  Literal  accuracy  would  have  been  comparatively 
tame.  And  had  not  the  word  bapto  been  a  term  whose  meaning  affects 
religious  practice,  the  above  expression  of  Daniel  and  the  Septuagint, 
instead  of  tormenting  commentators  and  controversialists,  would  have 
been  admired  as  a  beauty  in  composition.  "  Wetting  by  the  gentlest 
distillation  in  nature,"  would  the  critic  say,  "  is  here,  in  the  most  lively 
and  imaginative  language,  figured  as  an  immersion."  But  what  is  an  ele- 
gance in  the  classics,  is  a  ground  of  never-ending  quibble  to  theologians, 
who,  instead  of  seeking  the  laws  of  language  in  the  human  mind,  subject 
the  words  of  the  Spirit  to  the  laws  of  logical  truth.  No  doubt,  were 
Virgil  of  authority  in  religion,  and  were  rites  and  ceremonies  to  be  deter- 
mined by  his  writings,  the  above  expression  would  have  been  as  vari- 
ously interpreted  as  that  in  Daniel.     Many  a  time  we  should  hear,  that 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  39 

lavo,  from  this  example,  does  not  signify  to  wash,  but  to  wet,  to  moisten, 
to  drench. 

Virgil  affords  us  another  example  in  the  same  word  : 

"  Illi  alternantes  multa  vi  praelia  iniscent 
Vulneribus  crebris  :  lavit  ater  corpora  sanguis." 

In  the  encounter  of  the  two  bulls,  the  black  blood  ivashes  their  bodies. 
Here  it  might  be  said,  in  the  spirit  of  Mr.  Ewing's  criticism,  the  black 
blood  could  not  wash  ;  nay,  it  would  defile  the  bodies  of  the  contending 
animals.  Lavo,  then,  cannot  signify  to  wash,  but  to  smear.  But  every 
one  must  see  that  the  word  lavo  has  here  its  peculiar  signification,  and 
that  the  whole  beauty  of  the  expression  depends  on  this  circumstance. 
Every  man  who  has  a  soul  at  all,  knows  well  that  lavo  is  here  much 
more  beautiful,  than  if  the  poet  had  chosen  a  term  literally  signifying  to 
smear.  That  which  was  a  real  defilement  is  called  a  washing,  to  express 
figuratively  the  copiousness  of  the  blood  that  flowed  from  the  mutual 
wounds  of  the  contending  bulls.  This  gives  a  feast  to  the  imagination, 
where  literal  expression  would  afford  no  food.  Audire  habenas,  to  hear 
the  reins,  signifying  to  obey  the  bridle,  is  an  expression  of  the  same  kind. 
Indeed,  it  is  impossible  to  open  the  poets  without  being  presented  with 
examples  of  this  phraseology. 

Section  V. — Having  examined  those  examples  in  which  this  word 
has  been  supposed  to  signify  to  wash  or  to  ivet,  but  in  each  of  which  it 
is  to  be  explained  according  to  its  characteristic  meaning,  I  shall  now 
proceed  with  other  examples.  The  word  occurs,  as  might  be  expected, 
very  frequently  in  the  writings  of  Hippocrates :  and  as,  in  medical  use, 
there  is  occasion  to  refer  repeatedly  to  every  mode  of  the  application  of 
liquids,  in  the  voluminous  writings  of  this  great  physician,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  but  we  shall  find  the  characteristic  meaning  of  bapto.  Ac- 
cordingly, we  do  find  it  in  numerous  instances ;  and  in  all  these,  I  do 
not  recollect  any  but  one,  in  which  it  has  not  the  sense  of  dip.  In  that 
one,  it  signifies  to  dye,  according  to  its  secondary  import. 

The  first  occurrence  of  it  which  I  have  observed  in  this  author,  is  in 
his  treatise  De  Superfcet.  p.  50,  edit.  Basil.  "  Dip  the  probes  in  some 
emollient." 

At  the  bottom  of  the  next  page,  we  have  another  example  :  "  Dipping 
the  rag  in  white  sweet-smelling  Egyptian  ointment." 

In  the  treatise  De  Victus  Ratione,  p.  104,  the  following  example 
occurs :  "  Let  the  food  be  cakes  dipped  hot  in  sour  wine." 

In  the  treatise  De  Usu  Humidorum,  we  have  the  following  example  : 
"  But  for  the  sake  of  cooling  the  wound,  wool  is  either  sprinkled  with 
the  sour  wine,  or  put  into  it,  or  it  may  be  dipped  into  the  coldest  water." 

In  continuation  from  the  last  words,  the  following  immediately  suc- 
ceed, p.  113:  "  As  a  cooler,  black  wine  is  sprinkled  on  wood,  whereas 
beet-leaves  and  linen  are  for  the  most  part  dipped. 

In  the  treatise  De  Morbis,  we  have  the  following  examples,  lib.  xi. 
p.  145  :  "  Dipping  sponges  in  warm  water,  apply  them  to  the  head." 

In  the  next  page,  at  top,  we  have  the  following  example :  "  As  an 


40  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

external  application,  dipping  sponges  into  warm  water,  let  them  be 
applied  to  the  cheeks  and  jaws.  A  similar  example  occurs  near  the 
top  of  the  next  page :  "  Dipping  a  sponge  into  warm  water,  apply  it." 
Page  149  :  "  Give  garlic,  dipping  it  into  honey." 

In  page  151 ,  we  have  the  following  example  :  "  Let  him  not  sup  soup, 
nor  even  dip  his  bread  into  it."  In  the  Appendix  to  Mr.  Ewing's  Essay 
on  Baptism,  written  by  a  friend,  we  find  a  very  odd  view  of  this  passage. 
I  shall  quote  his  observations  at  large.  "  Hippocrates  (de  Morb.  lib.  ii.) 
uses  baptesthai  to  denote  the  application  of  a  liquid  to  the  skin ;  zomos 
de  me  phoreito  me  de  baptesthai,  '  neither  sip,  nor  pour  (or  sprinkle) 
broth ;'  using  baptesthai  in  this  sense,  I  suppose,  from  the  idea  that  the 
application  of  the  liquid  would  strongly  affect  the  place  to  which  the 
application  was  made ;  at  all  events,  it  would  require  no  small  ingenuity 
to  discover  in  this  passage  the  idea  of  immersion."  In  this  criticism  there 
is  a  complication  of  errors  and  false  principles.  1.  Why  does  the  author 
translate  baptesthai  by  pour  or  sprinkle  ?  Is  there  one  instance  in  which 
it  confessedly  must  have  this  meaning  in  the  whole  compass  of  Greek 
literature  ?  If  not,  to  apply  such  a  meaning  in  any  particular  emergency 
is  to  reason  without  first  principles.  2.  If  the  author  read  the  whole  of 
the  works  of  Hippocrates,  as  I  am  convinced  he  did,  must  he  not  have 
found  a  multitude  of  examples  in  which  the  word  bapto  unquestionably 
has  the  meaning  dip  ?  He  might  reply,  such  a  meaning  could  not  apply 
here.  But  even  if  he  could  not  find  any  view  in  which  the  usual  mean- 
ing of  the  verb  could  apply  in  this  instance,  would  it  not  have  been  more 
candid  to  grant  the  usual  signification  of  the  word,  and  confess  a  diffi- 
culty, than  to  assign  a  meaning  altogether  at  random,  without  a  shadow 
of  authority  either  from  the  word  or  the  context?  3.  How  does  he 
bring  the  skin  of  the  patient  into  requisition  in  this  place  ?  Where  does 
he  find  this?  Neither  in  the  expression,  nor  in  any  usual  ellipsis.  He 
might  as  well  have  supposed  the  feet  or  the  head.  4.  Is  it  a  fact  that 
broth  or  soup  would  have  such  a  mischievous  effect  on  the  skin  ?  The 
solution  of  this  surpasses  my  medical  knowledge.  5.  It  requires  no  in- 
genuity to  find  here  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word  baptesthai,  as  im- 
porting to  dip.  It  is  well  known  that  at  table  the  ancients  dipped  their 
bread  into  the  soup,  or  other  liquid  which  they  used  as  a  seasoning. 
What,  then,  can  be  so  natural  as  to  fill  up  the  ellipsis  with  the  bread 
which  was  dipped  ?  An  ellipsis  of  the  regimen  in  things  so  common 
was  quite  usual.  The  evangelist  uses  the  same  ellipsis,  where  he  says, 
"  he  that  dippeth  with  me  in  the  dish,"  that  is,  he  that  dippeth  his  hand 
with  me  in  the  dish,  as  another  evangelist  expresses  it ;  or  "  he  that 
dippeth  his  bread  with  me"  might,  with  equal  propriety,  be  supplied  as 
the  supplemental  matter.  6.  The  elliptical  matter  must  be  supplied  by 
the  connexion.  In  an  ellipsis  we  are  never  left  to  wander  abroad  to  look 
for  the  thing  that  is  wanting.  It  is  always  omitted,  because  it  is  so  obvious 
that  it  cannot  be  missed.  This  is  the  principle  on  which  ellipsis  is  used, 
and  on  no  other  is  it  justifiable.  Were  it  otherwise,  all  language  would 
consist  of  riddles.  This  is  the  reason  why  ellipsis  is  so  common  in  con- 
versation, and  about  the  most  common  things.  What  is  omitted  is 
omitted  because  every  hearer  will  instantly  supply  it.     We  say  of  a 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  41 

man,  that  he  is  a  great  drinker — drinker  of  what?  Drinker  of  water? 
No  Drinker  of  milk  ?  No.  But,  without  the  smallest  hesitation,  we 
understand  it  to  be  drinker  of  ardent  spirits.  Just  so  in  the  present  pas- 
sage. The  elliptical  matter  must  be  supplied  from  the  connexion,  and 
this  leaves  no  doubt  what  it  is.  The  writer  was  giving  direction  about 
the  food  of  his  patient.  In  the  words  immediately  preceding,  he  pre- 
scribed boiled  mutton,  fowl,  gourd,  and  beet.  In  the  passage  quoted,  he 
forbids  him  to  eat  broth,  or  even  to  dip — dip  what?  Dip  his  bread,  or 
his  food,  whatever  it  was,  in  the  broth.  What  else  could  he  mean  ?  In 
this  view,  the  passage  has  a  natural  and  a  rational  meaning.  In  some 
cases,  a  patient  might  be  forbidden  to  partake  freely  of  broth,  when  he 
might  be  permitted  to  season  his  morsel  by  dipping  it  in  the  savoury 
liquid.  But  in  this  case,  it  seems,  even  this  indulgence  was  not  permitted. 
But  upon  what  principle  could  the  skin  of  the  patient  be  supplied  as  the 
supplemental  matter  ?  It  is  not  in  the  connexion,  and  is  as  arbitrary  as 
if  we  should  supply  the  coat  of  the  patient.  It  may  be  added,  that,  in 
the  immediately  succeeding  connexion,  the  patient  is  permitted  to  eat 
fish.  The  whole  passage  speaks  of  diet.  7.  Whatever  is  forbidden  in 
a  medical  prescription,  must  be  a  thing  that  is  likely  to  be  done,  if  not 
forbidden.  No  physician  would  act  so  absurdly  as  to  prohibit  what 
there  is  no  probability  his  patient  would  do.  Now,  there  was  no  proba- 
bility that  the  patient  here  would  sprinkle  broth  on  his  skin,  had  the 
physician  been  silent  on  the  subject.  I  never  heard  of  any  such  custom; 
and  against  even  accidental  sprinkling  he  was  sufficiently  guarded,  by 
the  circumstance  that  he  was  not  permitted  to  use  the  fluid  as  food. 
There  was  surely  no  danger  of  sprinkling  his  skin  with  broth,  if  he  was 
not  permitted  to  eat  broth.  This  gloss  is  one  of  the  wildest  that  I 
ever  met. 

The  word  occurs  again  in  the  same  book,  p.  153.  "  Dipping  linen 
rags  into  water,  apply  them  to  the  breast  and  back." 

Lib.  iii.  p.  163.  "  A  livid  blister  rising  on  the  tongue,  as  of  iron 
dipped  into  oil" 

P.  164.  "  Having  dipped  a  piece  of  fine  linen  into  moist  Eretrian 
earth,  well  pounded  and  warm,  cover  the  breast  round  with  it." 

In  the  treatise  De  Internarum  Partium  Affectibus,  we  have  the  fol- 
lowing examples  from  the  same  author  : — 

P.  193.  "  Dipping  beet  in  cold  water,  apply  it  to  the  body,  especially 
to  a  new  pain ;  or  dipping  rags  in  cold  water,  after  wringing  out  the 
water,  apply  them." 

In  the  same  page  we  have  another  example :  "  Let  him  eat  green  mar- 
joram, for  the  most  part  dipping  it  into  honey." 

P.  199.  Having  prescribed  a  variety  of  things  to  be  eaten  by  his 
patient,  he  adds :  "  These  are  of  a  very  dry  nature ;  and  let  him  not  dip 
them  into  the  broth."  This  passage  is  a  decisive  commentary  on  the 
ellipsis  which  Mr.  Ewing's  friend  has  so  strangely  misunderstood.  The 
different  kinds  of  food  here  mentioned  are  prescribed  on  account  of  the 
quality  of  dryness,  and  the  patient  is  expressly  forbidden  to  dip  them  in 
the  soup  or  broth,  as  was  usual.  He  is  not  forbidden  to  sprinkle  his 
skin  with  broth,  which  no  man  ever  thought  of  doing ;   but  he  is  for- 

6 


42  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

bidden,  in  the  eating  of  the  things  prescribed,  to  dip  them  in  the  soup, 
which  he  was  likely  to  do,  had  he  not  been  forbidden. 

P.  202.  "  Burn  it  with  spindles  of  box-wood,  dipping  them  into 
boiling  oil." 

P.  203.  "  Let  him  use  radish  and  parsley,  dipping  them  into  vinegar." 

In  the  treatise  De  Natura  Muliebri,  p.  119  :  "  Dipping  (the  flies)  into 
the  oil  of  roses." 

P.  226.  "  Dipping  the  softest  wool  in  a  pipkin." 

P.  228.  "  Dipping  the  balls  into  the  juice  of  the  fig-tree." 

P.  231.  "  Dipping  (the  plaster)  into  white  Egyptian  oil." 
In  the  treatise  De  Morb.  Mul.  the  following  examples  occur : 

P.  249.  "  Taking  a  sponge,  or  dipping  soft  wool  into  warm  water." 
And  in  the  next  line :  "  Then  dipping  again  the  sponge,  or  the  wool, 
into  pure  wine." 

P.  250.  Speaking  of  a  number  of  things  boiled  together,  he  says : 
"  Then  dipping  wool  into  this." 

P.  254.  Speaking  of  a  certain  mixture,  he  says  :  "  After  this,  having 
dipped  it  into  the  oil  of  roses,  or  Egyptian  oil,  let  it  be  applied  during 
the  day."  In  the  same  page,  we  have  another  example  :  "  After  supper, 
let  her  eat  onions,  dipping  them  into  honey." 

P.  257.  When  a  blister  is  too  painful  to  the  patient,  he  orders  it 
to  be  taken  away ;  and  "  dipping  wool  into  the  oil  of  roses,  let  her 
apply  it." 

P.  258.  "  Having  boiled  nitre  with  rosin,  and  forming  them  into  a  ball, 
dipping  it  into  the  fat  of  a  fowl,  apply  it." 

P.  261.  "Dipping  the  ball  into  white  Egyptian  oil."  "Having 
dipped  nut-gall  into  honey,  or  the  gall  of  a  bull  into  Egyptian  oil, 
let  it  be  applied." — lb.  "  Make  an  oval  ball,  and  dip  it  into  white 
oil."— 76. 

P.  262.  "  Then  put  a  fine  rag  about  it,  in  wool,  dipping  it  into 
Egyptian  oil."  "  Dipping  (the  thing  prescribed)  into  white  Egyptian 
oil."— lb. 

P.  263.  "  Having  rolled  a  bit  of  galbanum  the  size  of  an  olive  into  a 
piece  of  linen,  and  having  dipped  it  into  cedar-oil." 

P.  264.  Having  prescribed  different  kinds  of  flesh  to  his  patients,  he 
directs,  "  Cooked  without  pepper,  dipping  it  into  vinegar." 

P.  269.  Speaking  of  wool  rolled  round  a  quill :  "  Dip  it  either  in 
white  oil,  or,"  &c.  And  within  a  few  lines :  "  Dip  the  feather  in 
vinegar." 

P.  273.  "  Dip  the  leaden  instrument  into  cold  water." 

P.  279.  "  Apply  the  fat  of  the  deer,  melted,  dipping  soft  wool  into  it." 

P.  279.  "  Dipping  wool  into  ointment." 

P.  280.  "  Put  this  mixture  into  clean  soft  wool,  and  let  her  dip  it  in 
white  Egyptian  oil." 

P.  284.  "  Dipping  the  unscoured  wool  in  honey." 

P.  288.  "  Form  it  into  a  ball,  and  dip  it  into  some  liquid."  "  Roll 
around  a  quill  the  gall  of  a  bull,  rubbed ;  and  dipping  it  into  Egyptian 
oil,  apply  it." — lb.  "  Or  cyclaminus,  the  size  of  a  die,  with  the  flower 
of  brass :  or  a  head  of  anemone,  bruising  it  with  meal,  and  putting  the 


THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  43 

mixture  into  white  wool,  around  a  quill,  dip  it,"  as  directed  above.  For 
cirion,  some  read  elaion ;  dip  it  into  ivkite  oil:  oleo  albo  intingito. — lb. 

P.  289.  "  Having  pounded  finely  a  drachm  of  the  fibres  of  flax  with 
the  stalks,  steep  them  thoroughly  for  the  night  in  the  sweetest  white 
wine;  then,  having  strained  and  warmed  it,  dip  the  softest  wool  in  it." 
Literally,  dip  in  it  with  the  softest  wool;  just  as  we  might  say  dip  the 
liquor  with  the  wool,  instead  of  dip  the  wool  in  the  liquor. 

P.  290.  "  Mixing  myrrh  and  rosin  together,  and  putting  them  in  wine, 
dip  a  piece  of  linen  in  the  mixture,  and  apply  it." 

De  Steril.  p.  292.  "  Dip  the  probe  in  the  unguent." 

P.  293.  "  Working  them  into  a  little  ball,  roll  it  in  wool,  except  the 
top ;  then  having  dipped  it  in  the  sweetest  oil,  apply  it." 

P.  297.  Speaking  of  a  mixture  the  size  of  a  nut-gall,  he  says : 
"  Dipping  it  in  the  ointment  of  fieur-de-luce." 

P.  299.  "  Taking  lead  and  the  magnetic  stone,  rub  them  smooth,  and 
tie  them  in  a  rag ;  then  having  dipped  them  in  breast  milk,  apply  them." 

"  Dipping  unwashed  wool  into  honey." — lb. 

De  Morb.  Pass.  Grass,  p.  339.  Speaking  of  a  shoemaker  who  was 
killed  by  the  prick  of  his  awl  in  the  thigh,  he  says,  "  The  instrument 
dipped  about  a  finger's  length." 

P.  362.  "  Dipping  sponges." 

De  Ratione  Victus  Acutorum,  p.  333.  "  Dipping  hot  cakes  in  black 
wine  and  oil." 

Coacae  Pra3cognitiones,  p.  435.  "  If  a  livid  blister  rise  on  the  tongue 
at  the  beginning,  as  of  iron  dipped  in  oil,  the  cure  becomes  the  more 
difficult." 

De  Ulceribus,  p.  514.  "  The  other  things  being  the  same ;  but  in 
place  of  the  wine,  take  the  strongest  vinegar  of  white  wine.  Dip  into 
this  the  most  greasy  wool."  "  Dip  the  wool  in  the  smallest  quantity  of 
water  possible ;  then  pouring  into  it  of  wine  a  third  part,  boil  it  to  a 
good  thickness." — lb. 

P.  522.  "  Dipping  the  raw  liver  of  an  ox  in  honey." 

Thus  we  have  seen  in  what  a  vast  multitude  of  examples  Hippocrates 
uses  this  word  to  signify  to  dip ;  and  that  quite  irrespectively  of  the 
nature  of  the  fluid.  Indeed,  he  not  only  uses  it  so  frequently  in  this 
signification,  but  he  uses  it  in  no  other  signification,  except  once  in  the 
sense  of  to  dye ;  and  it  is  the  only  word  which  he  employs  to  denote 
the  mode  in  question :  for  I  have  intentionally  omitted  no  instance  in 
which  the  word  occurs  in  all  his  works.  Besides,  we  have  in  this  wri- 
ter the  words  which  signify  every  application  of  water,  and  other  fluids, 
from  the  gentle  distillation  from  the  nipple,  to  the  bathing  of  the  whole 
body.  He  uses  raino,  aioneo,  &c,  for  sprinkle,  and  for  pour  he  uses  cheo 
with  its  compounds,  which  occurs  times  innumerable.  For  wet,  moisten, 
soak,  steep,  he  uses  deuo,  brecho,  teggo,  &c. :  the  first  of  which  meets  us 
in  almost  every  page ;  the  second  is  often  used ;  and  of  the  last  there 
are  several  examples.  For  bathing  the  whole  body,  he  constantly  uses 
louo,  and  he  makes  a  very  free  use  of  the  bath,  both  hot  and  cold :  for 
washing  a  part  of  the  body,  he  uses  nipto,  with  its  compounds ;  and 
occasionally  the  compounds  of  pluno.     If  it  is  possible  to  settle  the 


44  THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM. 

meaning  of  a  common  word,  surely  this  is  sufficient  to  fix  the  meaning 
oibapto  beyond  all  reasonable  controversy.  In  the  works  of  the  father  of 
medicine,  in  which  he  has  occasion  to  treat  of  every  mode  of  the  applica- 
tion  of  liquids,  and  which  consist  of  no  less  than  five  hundred  and  forty- 
three  closely  printed  folio  pages,  all  the  tvords  of  mode  are  applied,  and 
bapto  invariably  is  used  when  he  designates  immersion. 

Section  VI. — Having  established  the  meaning  of  this  word,  as  signi- 
ficant of  mode,  I  shall  now  show  that  it  signifies  also  to  dye.  That  it  has 
this  signification,  I  believe,  is  not  doubted  by  any.  But  while  one  party 
contends  that  this  is  its  primary  signification,  the  other  errs  as  far  on 
the  opposite  side ;  contending  that  this  meaning  is  only  by  consequence, 
and  that  the  word,  when  it  relates  to  dyeing,  always  denotes  dyeing  by 
dipping,  as  the  mode.  Now,  while  I  contend  that  dyeing  is  the  secon- 
dary meaning  of  this  word,  I  contend  also  that  this  is  a  real  literal  mean- 
ing, independent  of  consequence.  Although  this  meaning  arose  from 
the  mode  of  dyeing  by  dipping,  yet  the  word  has  come  by  appropriation 
to  denote  dyeing,  without  reference  to  mode.  Were  this  a  point  of 
mere  philological  accuracy,  I  would  pursue  it  no  farther  ;  but  as  it  is  of 
material  importance  in  this  controversy,  I  shall  establish  it  by  a  number 
of  examples  that  will  put  the  fact  beyond  question.  One  truth  can 
never  injure  another ;  and  if  it  has  the  appearance  of  doing  so,  we  may 
depend  that  there  is  something  about  the  matter  which  we  do  not  under- 
stand. The  advocates  of  truth  often  labour  in  the  proof  of  what  cannot 
be  proved,  the  proof  of  which  their  cause  does  not  require,  and  which 
sometimes  would  be  injurious  rather  than  profitable.  That  bapto  signi- 
fies to  dye  in  any  manner,  is  a  truth  which,  instead  of  being  against  us, 
serves  to  solve  difficulties  that  have  been  very  clumsily  got  over  by  some 
of  the  ablest  writers  on  this  side  of  the  question.  Indeed,  one  of  the 
most  plausible  objections  is  by  this  fact  removed  to  a  demonstration. 

Nothing,  in  the  history  of  words,  is  more  common  than  to  enlarge  or 
diminish  their  signification.  Ideas  not  originally  included  in  them  are 
often  affixed  to  some  words,  while  others  drop  ideas  originally  asserted 
in  their  application.  In  this  way,  bapto,  from  signifying  mere  mode, 
came  to  be  applied  to  a  certain  operation  usually  performed  in  that  mode. 
From  signifying  to  dip,  it  came  to  signify  to  dye  by  dipping,  because 
this  was  the  way  in  which  things  were  usually  dyed.  And  afterwards, 
from  dyeing  by  dipping,  it  came  to  denote  dyeing  in  any  manner.  A 
like  process  might  be  shown  in  the  history  of  a  thousand  other  words. 
Candlestick  originally  denoted  a  stick  to  hold  a  candle,  but  now  the  utensil 
employed  to  hold  a  candle  is  called  a  candlestick,  even  when  it  is  of  gold. 

The  only  instance  in  which  I  have  observed  the  word  bapto  in  this 
signification,  in  the  works  of  Hippocrates,  he  employs  it  to  denote  dyeing 
by  dropping  the  dyeing  liquid  on  the  thing  dyed:  "  When  it  drops  upon 
the  garments,  they  are  dyed."     This  surely  is  not  dyeing  by  dipping. 

There  is  a  similar  instance  in  Arrian's  Expedition  of  Alexander  the 
Great,  the  only  one  in  which  I  have  found  the  word  at  all  in  that  work. 
"  Nearchus  relates  that  the  Indians  dye  their  beards."  It  will  not  be 
contended  that  they  dyed  their  beards  by  immersion. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  45 

We  meet  this  word,  or  its  derivatives,  several  times  in  JEWaxi,  in  the 
sense  of  dyeing,  and  sometimes  when  the  process  was  not  by  dipping. 
Speaking  of  an  old  coxcomb,  who  endeavoured  to  conceal  his  age  by 
dyeing  his  hair,  he  says,  "  He  endeavoured  to  conceal  the  hoariness  of 
his  hair  by  dyeing  it."  Baphe  here  denotes  dyeing  in  general ;  for  hair 
on  the  head  is  not  dyed  by  dipping.  In  the  title  of  this  anecdote,  the 
old  man  is  styled :  "  The  old  man  with  the  dyed  hair."     Lib.  vii.  c.  xx. 

Speaking  of  a  lady  whose  yellow  locks  were  not  coloured  by  art,  but 
by  nature,  he  uses  the  word  baphsais.     Lib.  xiii.  c.  i. 

Nicolas  of  Damascus,  speaking  of  parasites  as  obliged  to  flatter  their 
patrons,  says,  "  Does  a  patron  affect  to  be  younger  than  he  is?  or  does 
he  even  dye  his  hair  V 

iEschylus,  in  the  Choephorae,  p.  85,  uses  the  word  in  the  same  way : 
"This  garment,  dyed  by  the  sword  of  ^Egisthus,  is  a  witness  to  me." 
The  garment  must  have  been  dyed  by  the  blood  running  down  over  it. 

These  examples  are  sufficient  to  prove,  that  the  word  bapto  signifies 
to  dye  in  general,  though  originally  and  still  usually  applied  to  dyeing 
by  dipping.  Having  such  evidence  before  my  eyes,  I  could  not  deny 
this  to  my  opponents,  even  were  it  a  difficulty  as  to  the  subject  of  the 
mode  of  baptism.  In  a  controversialist  nothing  can  compensate  for 
candour ;  and  facts  ought  to  be  admitted,  even  when  they  appear  unfa- 
vourable. It  is  an  unhallowed  ingenuity  that  strains  to  give  a  deceitful 
colouring  to  what  cannot  be  denied,  and  cannot  ultimately  serve  a  good 
cause.  Truth  will  be  sooner  made  to  appear,  and  will  sooner  be  received, 
if  on  all  sides  there  is  openness  and  honest  dealing,  without  any  attempt 
to  conceal,  or  to  colour.  To  force  through  difficulties,  employ  insuffi- 
cient evidence,  refuse  admissions  that  integrity  cannot  deny,  and  by 
rhetorical  artifice  cut  down  whatever  opposes,  is  the  part  of  a  religious 
gladiator,  not  of  a  Christian  contending  earnestly  for  Divine  institutions. 

On  the  subject  of  this  application  of  the  word  bapto,  I  cannot  but 
blame  some  of  the  most  distinguished  writers  on  both  sides  of  the  ques- 
tion. On  the  one  side,  supposing  it  to  be  necessary,  or  at  least  service- 
able, to  prove  that,  when  the  word  relates  to  dyeing,  it  is  always  dyeing 
by  dipping,  they  have  evidently  strained,  and  have  employed  false  criti- 
cism. With  respect  to  the  other  side,  to  say  nothing  of  the  straining  to 
squeeze  out  of  the  word  the  several  significations  of  sprinkling,  pouring, 
washing,  wetting,  &c,  for  which  there  is  not  any  even  plausible  ground, 
the  obvious  fact,  that  it  signifies  dyeing  by  any  process,  has  been  uncri- 
tically pressed  to  prove,  that  when  it  relates  to  the  application  of  pure 
water  it  denotes  all  modes  equally.  There  is  neither  candour  nor  phi- 
losophy in  such  attempts.  It  manifests  little  acquaintance  with  the  his- 
tory and  philosophy  of  the  signification  of  words.  In  reality  this  admitted 
fact  is  nothing  in  their  favour,  as  it  is  perfectly  agreeable  to  the  history 
of  the  meanings  of  a  numerous  class  of  words.  Use  is  always  superior  to 
etymology  as  a  witness  on  this  subject.  A  word  may  come  to  enlarge 
its  meanings,  so  as  to  lose  sight  of  its  origin.  This  fact  must  be  obvious 
to  every  smatterer  in  philology.  Had  it  been  attended  to,  Baptists  would 
have  found  no  necessity  to  prove  that  bapto,  when  it  signifies  to  dye, 
always  properly  signifies  to  dye  by  dipping ;  and  their  opponents  would 


46  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

have  seen  no  advantage  from  proving,  that  it  signifies  dyeing  in  any  man- 
ner. The  word  candlestick  applies  now  as  well  when  the  material  is  gold, 
as  when  it  is  timber.  He  would  not,  however,  be  worth  reasoning  with, 
who  should  from  this  circumstance  deny  that  the  name  points  out  the 
materials  of  which  candlesticks  among  the  Saxons  were  originally  made. 

The  observations  of  Dr.  Gale  on  this  subject  fall  in  some  degree  under 
the  above  censure.  "The  Grecians,"  says  he,  "very  frequently  apply 
the  word  in  all  its  various  forms  to  the  dyer's  art,  sometimes  perhaps 
not  very  properly,  but  always  so  as  to  imply  and  refer  only  to  its  true 
natural  signification  to  dip." 

What  does  this  learned  writer  mean  when  he  expresses  a  doubt  of  the 
propriety  of  this  usage?  Does  he  mean  that  such  an  extension  of  the 
meaning  of  words  is  in  some  degree  a  trespass  against  the  laws  of  lan- 
guage ?  But  such  a  usage  is  in  strict  accordance  with  the  laws  of  lan- 
guage; and  the  history  of  a  thousand  words  sanctions  this  example. 
Language  has  not  logical  truth  for  its  standard  ;  and  therefore  against 
this  it  cannot  trespass.     Use  is  the  sole  arbiter  of  language  ;  and 

WHATEVER  IS  AGREEABLE  TO  THIS  AUTHORITY,  STANDS  JUSTIFIED  BEYOND 

impeachment.  Candlestick  is  as  properly  applied  to  gold  as  to  timber  ; 
bapto  signifies  to  dye  by  sprinkling,  as  properly  as  by  dipping,  though 
originally  it  was  confined  to  the  latter. 

Nor  is  he  well  founded  when  he  asserts,  that  the  word  in  such  appli- 
cations always  implies  and  refers  to  its  primary  signification  only.  On 
the  contrary,  I  have  produced  some  examples,  and  he  himself  has  pro- 
duced others,  in  which  candour  cannot  say  that  there  is  any  such  impli- 
cation or  reference.  From  such  examples  it  could  not  be  known  even 
that  bapto  has  the  meaning  of  dip.  They  relate  to  dyeing  wholly  with- 
out reference  to  dipping ;  nay,  some  of  them  with  an  expressed  reference 
to  another  mode.  This  is  a  fact,  and  were  it  even  against  me,  I  could 
not  but  admit  it. 

Nor  are  such  applications  of  the  word  to  be  accounted  for  by  metaphor, 
as  Dr.  Gale  asserts.  They  are  as  literal  as  the  primary  meaning.  It  is 
by  extension  of  literal  meaning,  and  not  by  figure  of  any  kind,  that 
words  come  to  depart  so  far  from  their  original  signification.  The  exam- 
ples of  this  kind  which  Dr.  Gale  produces,  cannot  be  accounted  for  by 
his  philosophy.  "  Magnes,  an  old  comic  poet  of  Athens,  used  the  Lydian 
music,  shaved  his  face,  and  smeared  it  over  toith  tawny  washes."  Now, 
surely  baptomenos  here  has  no  reference  to  its  primary  meaning.  Nor 
is  it  used  figuratively.  The  face  of  the  person  was  rubbed  with  the  wash. 
By  anything  implied  or  referred  to  in  this  example,  it  coulcTnbt  be  known 
that  bapto  ever  signifies  to  dip. 

Ornis  baptos,  a  coloured  bird.  This  expression  is  indeed  figurative. 
But  the  figure  has  no  reference  to  dipping,  the  primary  meaning  of  the 
word,  but  to  dyeing.  The  bird  is  said  to  be  dyed,  though  its  colours 
were  natural.  By  the  same  figure  we  should  say  a  painted  bird,  though 
its  colours  were  not  conferred  by  the  pencil.  This  example  strongly 
confirms  my  view  of  the  word  in  Daniel.  Here  even  in  the  verbal 
(baptos)  of  the  very  word  bapto,  we  have  the  same  figure  which  I  have 
pointed  out  in  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  above  contested  passage.     The 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  47 

colours  of  a  bird  are  said  to  be  dyed,  by  a  beautiful  figure  founded  on  like- 
ness ;  just  as,  in  Daniel,  Nebuchadnezzar  was  said  to  be  immersed  in  dew, 
though  literally  the  dew  fell  on  him.  What  a  Goth  should  we  reckon 
the  critic  who  would  philosophize  on  such  expressions  as  painted  bird, 
on  the  principle  of  the  objection  to  dipping  as  the  meaning  of  the  word 
in  the  expression  used  by  Daniel !  "  The  plumage  of  the  bird,"  says 
the  philologist,  "  is  natural,  and  not  conferred  by  either  painter  or  dyer. 
The  word  painted,  therefore,  and  the  word  dyed,  when  applied  to  birds, 
designate  properly  natural  colours.  Baptos,  therefore,  in  the  expression 
used  by  Aristophanes,  does  not  signify  dyed,  but  denotes  colour,  whether 
artificial  or  natural."  A  foreigner,  on  the  same  principle,  might  show 
the  depth  of  his  philosophy  on  the  phrase  painted  bird.  "  Here,"  says 
he,  "  a  bird  is  said  to  be  painted.  Now  we  know  that  the  colours  of  a 
bird  are  not  given  by  the  pencil,  but  by  the  Creator.  The  proper  sense, 
then,  of  the  English  word  painted,  is  not  coloured  by  the  pencil,  but 
coloured  in  any  way."  This  might  appear  to  have  great  depth  and 
justness  to  people  as  little  acquainted  with  the  language  as  himself, 
and  who  should  not  venture  to  dip  into  the  philosophy  of  the  criticism. 
But  a  mere  child  who  speaks  English  would  laugh  at  it.  Yet  it  is  the 
very  criticism  employed  by  celebrated  scholars  on  the  passage  in  Daniel. 
If  theologians  had  as  much  taste  as  they  have  ingenuity  and  learning,  it 
would  save  themselves  and  their  readers  an  immensity  of  useless  labour. 

The  pictcB  volucres  of  Virgil  is  a  perfectly  similar  example  in  the  Latin 
language.  Aristophanes  speaks  of  dyed  birds,  Virgil  of  painted  birds. 
Let  the  criticism  on  the  passage  in  Daniel  be  applied  to  the  phrase  of 
Virgil.  "  Here,"  says  the  critic,  "  instead  of  colours  laid  on  by  the 
pencil  of  the  painter,  the  colour  is  given  by  the  invisible  hand  of  nature 
Pictce,  then,  cannot  signify  painted,  or  have  any  allusion  to  painting,  but 
must  denote  properly  natural  colouring."  This  is  the  very  essence  of  the 
criticism  on  the  passage  in  Daniel.  Nebuchadnezzar,  they  say,  was  not 
immersed  in  dew, — therefore  the  word  bapto  must  here  signify  the 
distillation  of  dew. 

Our  own  Milton  uses  the  same  figure  when,  speaking  of  the  wings  of 
the  angel  Raphael,  he  says,  colours  dipped  in  heaven,  though  he  does  not 
mean  that  they  were  either  dipped  or  dyed.  The  foreigner,  who,  from 
this  authority,  should  argue  that  the  English  word  dip  does  not  signify 
the  mode  which  we  understand  by  it,  would  find  his  justification  in  the 
criticism  on  the  above  passage  in  the  book  of  Daniel. 

Dr.  Gale  gives  us  another  passage  from  Aristotle,  which  is  as  little  to 
his  purpose,  namely,  to  prove  that  the  word,  when  it  signifies  to  dye,  has 
always  a  reference  to  dipping,  and  implies  it.  "  If  it  is  pressed,  it  dyes 
and  colours  the  hand."  Surely  there  is  no  reference  to  dipping  here ; 
the  hand  is  dyed  by  pressing  the  thing  that  dyes.  Here,  also,  the 
critical  eye  will  see  a  confirmation  of  my  view  of  the  principle  that 
operates  in  the  application  of  the  word  bapto  in  the  passage  of  the  book 
of  Daniel.  Things  are  said  to  be  dyed  by  nature,  on  the  same  principle 
that  Nebuchadnezzar  was  said  to  be  immersed  in  dew. 

Having  found,  beyond  reasonable  doubt,  that  bapto,  in  its  secondary 
sense,  is  employed  literally  and  properly  to  denote  dyeing,  even  when 


48  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

there  is  no  dipping,  we  are  now  prepared  to  examine  the  occurrence  of 
the  word  in  the  Battle  of  the  Frogs  and  Mice,  which  has  been  so  obsti- 
nately contested;  and  which  hitherto  has  been  the  most  plausible 
resource  of  those  who  have  laboured  to  prove  that  at  least  one  of  the 
meanings  of  the  word  is  to  pour.  The  blood  was  poured  into  the  lake, 
therefore  it  is  thought  bapto  must  signify  to  pour.  But  in  reality,  the 
passage  favours  neither  the  one  party  nor  the  other.  It  expresses  neither 
pouring  nor  dipping,  but  dyeing,  without  reference  to  mode.  If  bapto, 
as  we  have  proved,  signifies  to  dye  in  any  mode,  there  is  no  occasion  for 
the  advocates  of  immersion  in  baptism  to  find  immersion  in  the  word, 
as  it  signifies  to  dye.  This  simple  fact  settles  the  controversy  about  this 
passage  forever. 

"  He  fell,  and  breathed  no  more,  and  the  lake  was  tinged  with  blood ;" 
or,  according  to  the  translation  of  Cowper, 

"  So  fell  Crombophagus,  and  from  that  fall 
Never  arose,  but  reddening  with  his  blood 
The  wave,"  &c. 

To  suppose  that  there  is  here  any  extravagant  allusion  to  the  literal 
immersion  or  dipping  of  a  lake,  is  a  monstrous  perversion  of  taste.  The 
lake  is  said  to  be  dyed,  not  to  be  dipped,  nor  poured,  nor  sprinkled. 
There  is  in  the  word  no  reference  to  mode.  Had  Baptists  entrenched 
themselves  here,  they  would  have  saved  themselves  much  useless  toil, 
and  much  false  criticism,  without  straining  to  the  impeachment  of  their 
candour,  or  their  taste.  What  a  monstrous  paradox  in  rhetoric  is  the 
figuring  of  the  dipping  of  a  lake  in  the  blood  of  a  mouse !  Yet  Dr. 
Gale  supposes  the  lake  dipped  by  hyperbole.  "The  literal  sense,"  he 
says,  "  is,  the  lake  was  dipped  in  blood."  Never  was  there  such  a  figure. 
The  lake  is  not  said  to  be  dipped  in  blood,  but  to  be  dyed  with  blood. 

They  might  have  found  a  better  commentary  to  this  passage  in  the 
battles  of  Homer's  heroes  in  the  Iliad.  The  expression  evidently  alludes 
to  one  in  the  beginning  of  the  twenty-first  book  of  the  Iliad,  with 
respect  to  the  slaughter  of  the  Trojans  by  Achilles  in  the  river  Xanthus  : 

"The  waters  as  they  ran  reddened  with  blood."— Cowper. 

In  allusion  to  this,  in  the  burlesque  poem,  from  which  the  disputed  pas- 
sage is  taken,  the  whole  lake  is  said  to  be  dyed  with  the  blood  of  a  mouse, 
which  fell  in  battle  on  its  edge. 

The  monthly  reviewers,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Booth,  understood  the 
expression  in  this  paradoxical  sense.  "  In  a  poem  attributed  to  Homer," 
they  say,  "  called  the  Battle  of  the  Frogs  and  Mice,  it  is  said  a  lake  was 
baptized  with  the  blood  of  a  wounded  combatant — a  question  hath  arisen 
in  what  sense  the  word  baptize  can  be  used  in  this  passage."  This 
should  never  have  been  a  question ;  for  this  lake  is  not  said  to  be  bap- 
tized. The  word  bapto,  not  baptizo,  is  used.  Again,  the  lake  was  not 
dipped,  as  these  friends  of  dipping,  or  at  least  of  profuse  pouring,  assert. 
The  expression  is  literal,  and  has  not  the  smallest  difficulty. 

Section  VII. — The  derivatives  of  this  word,  both  in  the  primary  and 
secondary  meaning,  prove  that  it  denotes  immersion.     Bamma,  sauce  or 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  49 

soup  into  which  bread  or  other  food  is  dipped  in  eating ;  also  a  dye  into 
which  the  thing  to  be  dyed  is  dipped,  as  distinguished  from  chroma. 

Baphe,  immersion,  &c,  Soph,  in  Ajace :  "I  who  endured  horrible 
things,  as  iron  dipped  in  water."  Baphe  siderou  is  also  used  for  the 
edge  of  iron ;  because  the  edge,  or  sharpness,  is  given  in  the  tempering 
by  immersion  in  water. 

Bapsis,  the  act  of  dipping :  as  bapsis  chalkou  kai  siderou,  the  temper- 
ing of  brass  and  iron ;  quoted  by  Scapula  from  Pol.  ex  Antiphonte.  Now 
metal  is  tempered  in  water  by  immersion. 

Baptisis,  a  laver,  or  bathing  place,  used  by  Lucian. 
Dibaphos,  dyed  by  being  twice  dipped;  just  as  dyers  with  us  speak 
of  giving  their  cloth  one  dip,  or  two  or  three  dips. 

Oxubaphos,  oxubaphon,  and  oxubaphion,  quoted  by  Scapula  from 
Athen.  lib.  ii. :  the  small  vessel  which  was  used  to  hold  the  vinegar  with 
tchich  they  seasoned  their  food.  This  the  ancients  did  by  dipping.  To 
this,  doubtless,  our  word  saucer  owes  its  origin,  however  differently  it  is 
used  at  present.  This  is  an  instance  of  the  process  by  which  words  extend 
their  signification  beyond  the  ideas  originally  contained  in  them.  The 
word  saucer,  from  signifying  a  small  vessel  for  holding  sauce,  now  signifies 
one  for  cooling  tea.  This  is  a  fine  illustration  of  the  process  by  which 
bapto,  from  signifying  to  dip,  came  to  signify  to  dye  by  dipping,  and  at 
last  dropping  the  mode,  to  dye  in  any  manner.  The  foreigner  who  should 
allege  that  the  English  word  saucer  cannot  signify  a  small  vessel  for  tea, 
but  must  always  denote  one  for  sauce,  would  reason  as  correctly  as  those 
who  attempt  to  force  bapto,  when  signifying  to  dye,  always  to  look  back 
to  its  origin. 

This  compound,  mentioned  above,  is  also  used  as  the  name  of  a 
measure,  doubtless  because  this  vessel  was  at  first  used  as  the  measure 
of  the  quantity  so  designated.  At  last,  however,  it  would  come  by  a 
natural  process  to  denote  the  measure,  without  any  reference  to  the 
vessel. 

In  medical  language,  this  compound  was  also  applied  to  the  deep 
cavities  or  cups  in  which  bones  turn  in  the  joints — doubtless  taking  the 
name  from  the  shape.  Here  the  socket  of  a  joint  is  called  a  vinegar  cup. 
Opsobaphon,  taken  also  by  Scapula  from  Poll.  lib.  vii.  denotes  the 
small  vessel  in  which  these  things  were  served  up,  which  were  eaten 
with  bread,  and  which  were  always  used  by  dipping.  Xenophon  repre- 
sents the  hands  of  the  king  of  Media,  as  smeared  in  this  operation. 

The  verbal  baptos,  to  be  dipped,  or  that  may  be  dipped,  we  have  al- 
ready seen  in  the  passage  quoted  from  Euripides  in  justification  of  the 
translation  of  a  passage  in  Hippocrates.  The  negative  abaptos  may  also 
be  alleged  as  confirmatory  of  the  application  of  the  root  in  the  sense  of 
dipping.  Abaptos  sideros  is  untempered  iron,  literally  undipped  iron,  for 
iron  is  tempered  by    dipping. 

Abaptistos  also  signifies  that  cannot  be  immersed,  and  is  applied  by 
Pindar,  as  Scapula  observes,  to  cork.  This  fact  is  perfectly  decisive. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  property  of  cork,  not  to  sink  in  water, 
is  referred  to  by  Pindar. 

Abaptiston,  a  trepan,  a  surgical  instrument,  so  called  because  it  was 

7 


50  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

so  formed  as  not  to  sink  too  deeply,  lest  it  should  injure  the  membrane 
of  the  brain.  This  shows  that  the  word  from  which  it  is  derived  signifies 
to  dip. 

In  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  bapto,  it  may  be  of  assistance  to  us  to 
examine  also  some  of  its  compounds,  and  also  the  prepositions  with 
which  it  is  construed.  In  composition,  we  find  it  sometimes  joined  with 
prepositions  that  point  to  the  meaning  for  which  we  contend,  and  which 
will  not  suit  the  meaning  attached  to  it  by  our  opponents.  Besides,  it 
admits  no  preposition  in  composition  or  construction  with  it,  which 
cannot  be  accounted  for  on  the  supposition  of  this  meaning.  If  this 
position  can  be  made  good,  it  will  afford  the  strongest  confirmation  to 
our  doctrines. 

We  have  seen,  in  the  numerous  examples  quoted,  that  it  admits  both 
the  prepositions  eis  and  en  to  be  compounded  with  it,  as  well  as  to  con- 
strue with  it  in  regimen.  A  mere  glance  at  the  examples  may  convince 
any  one  that  this  would  not  suit  either  pour  or  sprinkle,  from  the  con- 
sideration of  the  things  which  are  the  subjects  of  the  operation  of  the 
verb.  We  could  not,  for  instance,  say,  pour  or  sprinkle  wool  in  or  into 
the  river.  If,  then,  the  word  signified  pour  or  sprinkle,  it  could  not 
admit  these  prepositions  either  in  composition  or  in  regimen,  with 
respect  to  many  things  that  are  the  subject  of  the  operation  of  the  verb. 
Both  the  prepositions  eis  and  en,  in  composition  with  this  word,  have 
the  same  form.  Embapto  is  the  compound  word  with  respect  to  both. 
The  regimen,  however,  is  different.  If  em  is  put  for  eis,  the  verb  is 
construed  with  the  accusative  of  the  thing  in  which  the  operation  of  the 
verb  is  performed,  either  without,  or  more  generally  with  the  preposition 
itself  repeated  before  it.  Embapto  eis  to  udor.  When  em  is  put  for  en, 
the  verb  is  construed  with  the  dative  of  the  thing  in  which  the  operation 
of  the  verb  is  performed,  either  with  the  same  preposition  repeated 
before  it,  or  without  it. — Embapto  en  to  elaio. 

When  eis  is  used  either  in  the  compound  or  before  the  substantive, 
there  can  be  no  question  that  all  idea  of  pouring  or  sprinkling  is  excluded. 
And  though  en  may  sometimes  be  translated  with,  it  never  has  this 
acceptation  in  composition.  Indeed,  this  form  is  so  decisive,  that  the 
celebrated  Dr.  Owen  asserts,  that  it  is  this  that  makes  the  verb  signify 
to  dip.  "  Baptizo,  says  he,  "  does  not  signify  properly  to  dip  or  plunge, 
for  that,  in  Greek,  is  embapto  and  embaptizo."  This  observation  is  not 
worthy  of  the  learning  of  that  great  and  good  man.  If  the  verb  bapto 
did  not  of  itself  signify  to  dip,  the  preposition  in  question  could  not  give 
it  that  meaning.  Dr.  Owen's  criticism  is  well  exposed  by  the  cool  good 
sense  of  Mr.  Booth.  "  Besides,"  says  he,  "  I  appeal  to  the  learned 
whether  Dr.  Owen  might  not  as  well  have  asserted,  that  mergo  does  not 
properly  signify  to  dip  or  plunge,  for  that,  in  Latin,  is  immergo  ?  Nay, 
does  not  the  Dr.  himself,  in  the  same  discourse,  acknowledge,  that  ■  the 
original  and  natural  signification  of  the  word  imports  to  dip,  to  plunge, 
to  dye,  to  wash,  to  cleanse  V  " 

Embamma  signifies  sauce,  or  any  liquid  into  which  food  is  dipped  in 
order  to  be  eaten — something  to  be  dipped  into.  This  compound  could 
not  suit  either  pouring  or  sprinkling.     Embaphion,  a  saucer  or  vessel 


THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  51 

to  hold  the  liquid  for  seasoning  food,  which  was  used  by  dipping.  It 
came  also  to  denote  a  certain  measure, — no  doubt  from  the  circumstance 
that  this  vessel  was  employed  as  a  measure.  In  this  sense,  Hippocrates 
uses  it  several  times. 

Katabapto  signifies,  literally,  to  dip  dozen,  that  is,  to  dip  deeply,  or 
thoroughly.  The  preposition  is  designed  to  increase  the  action  of  the 
verb.     Accordingly,  katabapton  signifies  a  dyer. 

Epibapto,  to  dip  upon.  We  find  this  compound  once  used  by  Hippo- 
crates, and,  although  it  affords  us  no  evidence,  it  takes  none  from  us. 

The  use  of  apo  with  this  word  may  appear  more  strange,  but  it  is 
explicable.  It  is  used  both  in  composition  and  following  the  verb;  and 
sometimes  it  is  used  in  composition  when  eis  follows  the  verb.  Apobapto 
appears  to  designate  to  dip,  as  intimating  the  departure  of  the  thing 
dipped  from  the  thing  in  which  it  is  dipped.  When  apo  follows  bapto, 
it  respects  the  point  from  which  the  finished  dipping  has  proceeded. 
Bapto  apo  tou  aimatos.  I  dip  it  from  the  blood.  The  blood  is  the  point 
from  which  the  thing  dipped  proceeded,  after  the  operation. 

The  preposition  ek  is  also  construed  with  apobapto,  in  one  of  the 
examples  taken  from  Hippocrates.  This  makes  it  still  more  evident, 
that  apo,  in  construction  with  this  verb,  denotes  the  point  from  which 
the  dipping  was  effected.  Ek  views  the  thing  dipped  as  proceeding 
out  of  the  thing  in  which  it  was  dipped. 

Scapula  seems  to  think  that  apo  in  composition  with  this  word,  is 
designed  to  intimate  the  gentleness  of  the  operation,  as  he  translates  it, 
immergo  leniter,  I  dip  gently ;  and  refers  to  Dioscorides,  lib.  v.  apo- 
bapsai  eis  udor. 

But  though  it  may  be  used  with  respect  to  the  gentlest  dipping,  it 
cannot  intimate  this.  But  whatever  may  be  the  peculiar  effect  of  this 
preposition  in  composition  with  bapto,  and  on  whatever  principle  its  use 
is  to  be  accounted  for,  the  fact  that  the  compounded  word  is  sometimes 
used  in  construction  with  eis,  removes  all  appearance  of  objection  to  our 
view  of  the  meaning  of  the  verb. 

Section  VIII. — Let  us  now  take  a  glance  at  a  few  passages  in  which 
bapto  is  used  figuratively,  as  this  also  may  cast  some  light  back  upon  its 
literal  meaning.  Aristophanes  says  :  "  Lest  I  dip  you  into  a  Sardinian 
dye."  The  figure  is  but  low,  and  is  just  the  same  as  if  a  pugilist  with 
us  should  say,  I  will  dip  you  in  vermilion.  It  is  an  allusion  to  the  dyer's 
art,  and  means,  I  will  beat  you,  till  you  shall  be  covered  all  over  xoithyour 
own  blood.  It  would  be  to  no  purpose  to  allege,  that,  when  a  man  is 
beaten,  he  is  not  literally  dipped  in  his  blood,  but  the  blood  runs  over 
him.  This  would  indicate  a  total  misconception  of  the  figure.  The 
likeness  does  not  consist  in  the  manner,  but  in  the  effects.  As  the  refer- 
ence is  to  the  art  of  dyeing,  so  the  expression  must  be  suited  to  the  usual 
mode  of  dyeing.  J  will  dip  you  in  vermilion,  is  exactly  the  expression 
of  the  poet  in  English.  He  would  be  a  sorry  critic,  who,  from  this, 
should  allege  that  the  English  word  dip  signifies  to  run  over,  as  blood 
from  the  wounded  body.  In  fact,  pour  and  sprinkle  are  as  little  appli- 
cable here,  in  a  literal  sense,  as  dip  itself.    When  a  man  is  beaten,  there 


52  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

is  no  pouring  or  sprinkling,  more  than  dipping.  The  blood  is  not  put  on 
the  beaten  person  by  the  beater,  in  any  manner. 

Marcus  Antoninus  Pius  speaks  of  the  man  of  virtue  as  bebammenon, 
dipped  or  dyed  in  justice.  I  would  not  explain  this  with  Dr.  Gale, 
"  dipped  as  it  were  in,  or  swallowed  up  with  justice."  Justice  is  here 
represented  as  a  colouring  liquid,  which  imbues  the  person  who  is  dipped 
in  it.  It  communicates  its  qualities  as  in  the  operation  of  dyeing.  The 
figure  can  receive  no  illustration  from  the  circumstance,  that  "  persons 
given  up  to  their  pleasures  and  vices,  are  said  to  be  immersed  or  swal- 
lowed up  with  pleasures."  The  last  figure  has  a  reference  to  the 
primary  meaning  of  the  word  bapto,  and  points  to  the  drowning  effects  of 
liquids ;  the  former  refers  to  the  secondary  meaning  of  the  word,  and 
has  its  resemblance  in  the  colouring  effects  of  a  liquid  dye.  The  vir- 
tuous man  is  dipped  to  be  dyed  more  deeply  with  justice ;  the  vicious 
man  is  drowned  or  ruined  by  his  immersion.  Perfectly  similar  is  the 
figure  in  an  observation  of  the  same  writer,  where  he  asserts  that  the 
thoughts  are  tinctured  by  the  mind.  We  use  the  word  imbue  in  the 
same  way.  He  uses  the  same  word  also  when  the  dye  injures  what  it 
colours.     He  cautions  against  bad  example,  lest  you  be  infected. 

We  see,  then,  that  the  use  of  this  word  in  a  figurative  sense,  is  not 
only  always  consistent  with  my  view  of  the  meaning  of  this  word,  but 
that  it  frequently  illustrates  its  primary  import. 

Section  IX. — That  bapto  signifies  to  dip  is  strongly  confirmed  by  the 
circumstance,  that  dyeing,  which  it  also  imports,  was  usually  performed, 
both  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  by  immersion.  If  the  word 
originally  denoted  to  dip,  it  might,  by  a  natural  process,  come  to  signify 
to  dye,  which  was  performed  by  dipping.  But  if  the  word  originally 
signified  to  pour  or  to  sprinkle,  no  process  can  be  supposed  by  which  it 
would  come  to  denote  to  dye.  Upon  our  view,  there  is  a  connecting 
link  which  joins  these  two  meanings  together,  notwithstanding  their 
great  diversity.  They  are  seen  by  our  doctrine  as  parent  and  child. 
On  the  view  of  our  opponents  there  is  no  relation.  The  two  meanings 
cannot  have  any  consanguinity.  Now,  that  dyeing  anciently  was  com- 
monly performed  by  dipping,  and  that  it  still  is  so,  admits  no  reasonable 
doubt.  Dr.  Gale  has  well  observed  this,  and  has  given  evidence  of  the 
fact,  should  any  be  so  perverse  as  to  deny  it.  After  producing  some 
passages,  he  observes,  "  I  will  only  observe,  you  will  please  to  consider 
dipping  as  the  only  probable  and  convenient  way ;  and  in  every  respect 
perfectly  agreeable  to  the  nature  of  the  thing,  as  well  as  to  that  sense  of 
the  word,  which  is  very  considerable.  We  see  it  is  the  only  way  with 
us ;  and,  which  carries  the  parallel  still  farther  between  the  ancient 
Greeks  and  us,  as  they  used  bapto,  we  used  the  word  dip,  both  among 
the  workmen  in  the  shop,  and  in  ordinary  conversation ;  for  what  is 
more  common  than  to  talk  of  such  or  such  a  thing  dipped,  meaning  in 
the  dyer's  copper,  or  in  some  colours?"  "  Besides  it  is  observable,  that 
the  Grecians  made  a  difference  between  dye,  and  other  colouring  matter. 
Thus  Plutarch  distinguishes  between  cliromata  and  bammata ;  and  Pollux 
does  the  same ;   bammata  signifying  only  that  sort  of  colouring-matter 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  53 

into  which  anything  is  dipped,  according  to  the  sense  of  the  word,  as  I 
see  Stephens  also  has  remarked.  And  there  is  a  passage  in  Seneca  very 
clear  to  this  purpose.  '  Interest  quamdiu  macerata  est,  crassius  medica- 
mentum  an  aquatius  traxerit,  saepius  mersa  est,  et  excocta,  an  semel 
tincta.'  There  is  a  difference  also,  hoio  long  it  lies  infused;  whether  the 
dye  be  thick  and  gross,  or  ivaterish  and  faint ;  and  whether  dipped  very 
often  and  boiled  thoroughly ,  or  only  once  tinctured.  And  Phavorinus 
and  Pollux  use,  katabapton,  which  on  all  hands  is  allowed  most  empha- 
tically to  signify  dipping,  plunging,  immersing ,  as  a  synonymous  word 
for  bapton  and  chronnus,  in  English,  a  dyer." 

"  This  makes  it  necessary  to  suppose  they  dyed  by  dipping ;  as  well 
as  another  word  used  by  them  in  these  cases,  namely,  epsein,  to  boil : 
they  boiled  it  in  kettles,  says  Aristotle ;  and  when  the  flowers  are  boiled 
long  enough  together,  at  length  all  becomes  of  a  purple." 

A  most  decisive  passage  to  the  same  purpose,  he  thus  translates  from 
Plato  de  Republica,  lib.  iv.  p.  636.  "  The  dyers,  ivhen  they  are  about 
to  dip  a  quantity  of  wool,  to  make  it  of  a  purple  colour,  cull  out  the 
whitest  of  the  fleece,  and  prepare  and  wash  it  ivith  a  ivorld  of  trouble, 
that  it  may  the  better  take  the  grain ;  and  then  they  dip  it.  The  dye 
of  things  thus  dipped  is  lasting  and  unchangeable,  and  cannot  be  fetched 
out  or  tarnished,  either  by  fair  zcater,  or  any  preparations  for  the  dis- 
charging of  colours.  But  things  which  are  not  dyed  after  this  manner, 
you  knoiv  what  they  are ;  no  matter  what  dye  they  are  dipped  in,  they 
never  look  well;  without  this  preparation  they  take  but  a  nasty  colour,  and 
that  is  easily  washed  out  too.  And  thus  in  like  maimer  our  choosing  sol- 
diers, and  instructing  them  in  music,  and  those  exercises  which  consist  in 
agility  of  body,  you  must  imagine  our  design  is  only  to  make  them  the 
better  receive  the  laws,  which  are  a  kind  of  dye, — that  their  temper  being 
formed  by  a  proper  discipline,  may  be  fixed  and  unalterable  by  terror, 
fyc,  and  their  tincture  may  not  be  washed  out  by  any  medicaments  of 
the  most  powerfully  expelling  nature ;  as  pleasure,  which  is  stronger  to 
this  effect  than  any  dye,  as  is  likcivise  grief  ,  fear,  or  desire,  and  the  like." 

Here  is  the  most  complete  evidence,  that  both  among  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  dyeing  was  usually  performed  by  dipping.  Indeed,  nothing  but 
perverseness  can  make  a  question  of  this,  though  there  was  no  evidence 
of  the  fact  from  history.  There  is  no  other  way  in  which  fluids  can  be 
extensively  applied  in  dyeing,  but  by  dipping. 

The  truth  of  this  fact  is  not  in  the  least  affected  by  the  observation  of 
Mr.  Ewing,  that  dyeing,  staining,  and  painting  were  originally  similar 
operations,  having  been  first  suggested  by  the  accidental  bruising  of 
fruits,  &-c.  Though  this  were  a  fact  recorded,  instead  of  a  conjecture, 
it  could  be  of  no  service  on  this  subject.  Arts  are  not  necessarily  con- 
ducted in  the  way  in  which  they  were  originally  suggested.  Whatever 
was  the  origin  of  dyeing,  dipping  was  the  common  way  of  performing  it 
as  an  art.  It  is  the  usual  mode  of  performance,  and  not  the  accidental 
mode  of  discovery,  that  could  give  its  name  to  the  art.  Dr.  Cox's 
answer  to  this  objection  is  quite  satisfactory.  "  In  reply  to  this,"  says 
he,  "  it  might  be  sufficient  to  say,  that  in  whatever  manner  the  process 
was  primarily  discovered,  the    correct    meaning  of  the   term   which 


54  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

expresses  it,  involves  the  idea  of  immersion,  and  did  so  at  the  very  period 
when  the  contested  words  were  in  colloquial  use.  Pliny  states,  •  the 
Egyptians  began  by  painting  on  white  cloths,  with  certain  drugs,  which 
in  themselves  possessed  no  colour ;  but  had  the  property  of  abstracting 
or  absorbing  colouring  matters ;  but  these  cloths  were  afterwards  im- 
mersed in  a  diluted  dyeing  liquor,  of  a  uniform  colour,  and  yet,  when 
removed  from  it  soon  after,  that  they  were  found  to  be  stained  with  in- 
delible colours,  differing  from  one  another,  according  to  the  nature  of 
the  drugs  which  had  been  previously  applied  to  different  parts  of  the 
stuff.'  In  this  passage,  we  are  favoured  with  an  intelligible  distinction 
between  painting,  immersing  (or  the  art  of  dyeing),  and  staining ;.  yet 
we  are  required  to  admit  that  they  were  one. 

Agreeably  to  the  above  view  of  the  connexion  between  the  secondary 
meaning  of  this  word  and  the  primary,  we  have  a  great  number  of  the 
branches  which  have  the  same  double  import,  from  the  same  connexion. 
Bamma,  sauce  into  which  food  is  dipped, — and  a  dye  into  which  things 
are  to  be  dipped.  Baphe,  dipping  and  dyeing  stuff,  or  the  tincture 
received  from  dyeing.  Baphikos,  both  dipping  and  dyeing, — and 
baphike,  the  dyer's  art.  Baptos,  to  be  dipped,  and  to  be  dyed,  &c.  &c. 
In  all  these,  there  is  no  other  common  idea  but  mode :  this  is  the  link  that 
connects  these  two  things  that  are  altogether  different.  If  the  same  word 
has  the  same  double  meaning  in  so  many  of  its  branches,  there  must 
surely  be  at  the  bottom  some  natural  relation  between  these  meanings. 

This  view  of  the  primary  meaning  of  bapto,  and  the  secondary,  is 
greatly  confirmed  by  the  analogy  of  other  languages.  The  same  primary 
and  secondary  meanings  are  found  in  the  corresponding  word,  in  many 
other  languages.  The  Septuagint  translation  gives  parabapta,  in  Ezek. 
xxiii.  15.  The  Hebrew,  to  which  this  corresponds,  signifies  dyed  rai- 
ment.  Here  we  see  that  the  Hebrew,  which,  as  Dr.  Gale  observes,  every 
one  must  own,  signifies  to  dip,  is  used  also  for  dye.  This  analogy  is 
complete,  and  must  arise  from  the  same  cause,  namely,  that  among  the 
Hebrews,  as  well  as  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  dyeing  was  commonly 
performed  by  dipping.  The  same  word,  in  the  Chaldee  also,  as  Dr. 
Cox  has  observed,  signifies  both  to  dip  and  to  dye. 

In  the  Latin,  also,  the  same  word,  tingo,  signifies  to  dip  and  to  dye. 
To  this  Mr.  Ewing  replies,  that  "  Tingo  is  the  Greek  teggo,  [pron.  tengo,~\ 
which  is  very  properly  translated  in  the  Lexicons,  madefacio,  humido, 
mollio ;  I  moisten,  wet,  soften,  or  mollify."  That  tingo  is  derived  from 
teggo  is  undoubted  ;  but  to  assert  that  it  has  all  the  significations  of  its 
parent,  and  that  it  has  no  other,  would  be  as  unphilological  in  theory,  as 
it  is  inconsistent  with  fact.  Teggo  does  not  signify  to  dye;  tingo,  its 
derivative,  has  this  signification.  Where  did  it  find  it  ?  Teggo  signifies 
to  moisten,  &c. ;  tingo  has  not  this  signification.  I  am  aware  that  wash 
is  given  as  one  of  its  meanings  in  the  dictionaries,  but  I  have  seen  as  yet 
no  authority  for  this  from  the  classical  use  of  the  word.  Besides,  ivash 
is  not  the  same  as  moisten,  wet,  Slc.  I  grant,  indeed,  that  the  word  may 
be  used  when  washing,  wetting,  moistening,  softening,  &c,  is  the  con- 
sequence of  the  dipping.  Still,  however,  this  is  not  literally  contained 
in  the  expression.     Though  any  of  these  words  might  be  given  in  certain 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  55 

situations  as  a  translation,  yet  such  a  translation  would  not  be  literal. 
Tingo  expresses  appropriately  dipping  and  dyeing,  and  these  only. 

Indeed,  the  meaning  of  tingo  is  to  be  learned  from  its  use  in  the  Latin 
language,  and  not  from  the  use  of  its  root  in  the  Greek.  When  this  is 
ascertained,  then  the  philologist  may  look  into  its  origin,  to  discover  a 
correspondence.  It  may  be  expected  that  the  root  will  contain  some 
idea  which  has  been  a  foundation  to  its  use  in  the  derived  language. 
But  a  correspondence  in  all  their  meanings  would  often  be  looked  for  in 
vain.  The  derived  word  often  drops  every  meaning  of  the  root  but  one, 
and  takes  others  that  the  root  never  possessed. 

Does  Mr.  Ewing  deny  that  tingo  signifies  to  dip  ?  If  he  does,  the 
classical  use  of  that  word  will  contradict  him.  The  dipping  of  the  sun, 
moon,  and  stars,  in  the  ocean,  as  we  should  express  it,  is  in  the  language 
of  the  Latin  poets  expressed  by  tingo.  If  he  does  not  deny  this,  his 
assertion  in  the  above  extract  is  nothing  to  his  purpose. 

If  there  was  any  need  of  authority  with  respect  to  the  meaning  of 
tingo,  we  have  it  in  Tertullian.  He  understood  the  Latin  language,  and 
he  uses  tingo  for  dip.  It  is  well  known  that  he  believed  that  proper  baptism 
consisted  in  three  immersions ;  and  he  translated  the  Greek  word  by  tingo. 

The  same  analogy  is  recognised  by  our  own  language ;  and  though  I 
would  not  say  with  some,  that  dip  has  dye  as  a  secondary  signification, 
yet  in  certain  circumstances  it  may  have  this  import  by  consequence, — 
"  colours  dipped  in  heaven."  Since,  then,  the  analogy  of  so  many  lan- 
guages connects  dipping  and  dyeing  by  expressing  them  by  the  same 
word,  why  should  not  the  same  thing  be  supposed  in  the  Greek?  and 
bapto,  as  it  has  the  secondary  meaning  of  dye,  have  also  the  primary 
meaning  of  dip?  It  may  be  added,  that  we  have  the  authority  of  the 
Latin  poets,  to  translate  bapto  by  tingo,  in  the  sense  of  dipping.  As  the 
Greek  poets  apply  bapto  to  the  setting  of  a  constellation,  or  its  dipping 
in  the  ocean,  the  Latin  poets  express  the  same  thing  by  mcrgo  and  tingo. 

Section  X. — Having  viewed  bapto  in  every  light  in  which  it  can  assist 
us  on  this  subject,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  exhibit  the  examples  of  the 
occurrence  of  baptizo  itself,  which,  to  the  utter  exclusion  of  the  root,  is 
applied  to  the  Christian  rite.  Bapto,  the  root,  I  have  shown  to  possess 
two  meanings,  and  two  only,  io  dip  and  to  dye.  Baptizo,  I  have  asserted, 
has  but  one  signification.  It  has  been  formed  on  the  idea  of  the  primary 
meaning  of  the  root,  and  has  never  admitted  the  secondary.  Now,  both 
these  things  have  been  mistaken  by  writers  on  both  sides  of  this  contro- 
versy. It  has  been  generally  taken  for  granted,  that  the  two  words  are 
equally  applicable  to  baptism ;  and  that  they  both  equally  signify  to  dye. 
Both  of  them  are  supposed,  in  a  secondary  sense,  to  signify  to  wash  or 
moisten.  I  do  not  admit  this  with  respect  to  either.  I  have  already 
proved  this  with  respect  to  bapto  ;  the  proof  is  equally  strong  with 
respect  to  baptizo.  My  position  is,  that  it  always  signifies  to  dip  ; 
never  expressing  anything  but  mode.  Now,  as  I  have  all  the  lexico- 
graphers and  commentators  against  me  in  this  opinion,  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  say  a  word  or  two  with  respect  to  the  authority  of  lexicons. 
Many  may  be  startled  at  the  idea  of  refusing  to  submit  to  the  unanimous 


56  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

authority  of  lexicons,  as  an  instance  of  the  boldest  scepticism.  Are 
lexicons,  it  may  be  said,  of  no  authority  1  Now,  I  admit  that  lexicons 
are  an  authority,  but  they  are  not  an  ultimate  authority.  Lexicographers 
have  been  guided  by  their  own  judgment  in  examining  the  various  pass- 
ages in  which  a  word  occurs :  and  it  is  still  competent  for  every  man 
to  have  recourse  to  the  same  sources.  The  meaning  of  a  icord  must  ulti- 
mately  he  determined  by  an  actual  inspection  of  the  passages  in  which  it 
occurs,  as  often  as  any  one  chooses  to  dispute  the  judgment  of  the  lexi- 
cographer. The  use  of  a  word,  as  it  occurs  in  the  writers  of  authority 
in  the  English  language,  is  an  appeal  that  any  man  is  entitled  to  make 
against  the  decision  of  Dr.  Johnson  himself.  The  practice  of  a  lan- 
guage is  the  House  of  Lords,  which  is  competent  to  revise  the  decisions 
of  all  dictionaries. 

But  though  it  is  always  lawful  to  appeal  from  lexicons  to  the  language 
itself,  it  is  seldom  that  there  can  be  any  necessity  for  this,  with  respect 
to  the  primary  meaning  of  words.  Indeed,  with  respect  to  the  primary 
meaning  of  common  words,  I  can  think  of  no  instance  in  which  lexicons 
are  to  be  suspected.  This  is  a  feature  so  marked,  that  any  painter  can 
catch,  and  faithfully  represent.  Indeed,  I  should  consider  it  the  most 
unreasonable  scepticism,  to  deny  that  a  word  has  a  meaning,  which  all 
lexicons  give  as  its  primary  meaning.  On  this  point,  I  have  no  quarrel 
with  the  lexicons.  There  is  the  most  complete  harmony  among  them, 
in  representing  dip  as  the  primary  meaning  ofbapto  and  baptizo.  Except 
they  had  a  turn  to  serve,  it  is  impossible  to  mistake  the  primary  mean- 
ing of  a  word  commonly  used.  Accordingly,  Baptist  writers  have  always 
appealed,  with  the  greatest  confidence,  to  the  lexicons  even  of  Paedo- 
baptist  writers.  On  the  contrary,  their  opponents  often  take  refuge  in 
a  supposed  sacred  or  scriptural  use,  that  they  may  be  screened  from  the 
fire  of  the  lexicons. 

It  is  in  giving  secondary  meanings,  in  which  the  lines  are  not  so  easily 
discovered,  that  the  vision  of  the  lexicographers  is  to  be  suspected.  Nor 
is  it  with  respect  to  real  secondary  meanings  that  they  are  likely  to  be 
mistaken.  Their  peculiar  error  is  in  giving,  as  secondary  meanings, 
what'are  not  properly  meanings  at  all.  The  same  objection  that  I  have 
to  lexicons,  with  respect  to  this  word,  I  have  not  with  respect  to  it  alone, 
but  with  respect  to  almost  all  words  to  which  they  assign  a  great  variety 
of  meanings.  I  do  not  exclude  Dr.  Johnson  himself  from  this  censure. 
It  may  appear  strange  to  some,  that  the  most  learned  men  can  be 
imposed  upon  in  this  matter ;  and  with  respect  to  words  which  they  find 
in  use  in  what  they  read,  think  that  they  have  meanings  which  they  have 
not.  But  a  little  consideration  of  the  nature  of  the  mistake  will  explain 
this  matter.  I  admit  that  the  meaning  which  they  take  out  of  the  word, 
is  always  implied  in  the  passage  where  the  word  occurs.  But  I  deny 
that  this  meaning  is  expressed  by  the  word.  It  is  always  made  out  by 
implication,  or  in  some  other  way. 

To  explain  this  point  more  clearly,  I  shall  lay  down  a  canon,  and  by 

this  I  mean  a  first  principle  in  criticism.     That  which  does  not  contain 

'  its  own  evidence  is  not  entitled  to  the  name  of  a  critical  canon.     I  do 

not  request  my  readers  to  admit  my  canon.     I  insist  on  their  submission 


THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  57 

—let  them  deny  it  if  they  can.  My  canon  is,  that  in  certain  situa- 
tions, TWO  WORDS,  OR  EVEN  SEVERAL  WORDS,  MAY,  WITH  EQUAL  PRO- 
PRIETY, FILL    THE    SAME    PLACE,    THOUGH    THEY    ARE    ALL    ESSENTIALLY 

different  in  their  significations.  The  physician,  for  instance,  may, 
with  equal  propriety  and  perspicuity,  say  either  "  dip  the  bread  in  the 
wine,"  or,  "moisten  the  bread  in  the  wine."  Yet  this  does  not  import 
that  dip  signifies  to  moisten,  or  that  moisten  signifies  to  dip.  Each  of 
these  words  has  its  own  peculiar  meaning,  which  the  other  does  not 
possess.  Dip  the  bread  does  not  say  moisten  the  bread,  yet  it  is  known 
that  the  object  of  the  dipping  is  to  moisten.  Now  it  is  from  ignorance 
of  this  principle  that  lexicographers  have  given  meanings  to  words  which 
they  do  not  possess ;  and  have  thereby  laid  a  foundation  for  evasive 
criticism  on  controverted  subjects,  with  respect  to  almost  all  questions. 
In  Greek  it  might  be  said  with  equal  propriety,  deusai  en  oino,  or  bapsai 
en  oino,  "moisten  in  wine,  or  dip  in  wine;"  and  from  this  circumstance 
it  is  rashly  and  unphilosophically  concluded  that  one  of  the  meanings 
of  bapto  is  to  moisten. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  my  censure  lies  against  the  critical  exact- 
ness of  lexicographers,  and  not  against  their  integrity,  or  even  their 
general  learning  and  ability.  I  go  farther, — I  acquit  them  of  misleading 
their  readers  with  respect  to  the  general  meaning  of  the  passages,  on  the 
authority  of  which  they  have  falsely  assigned  such  secondary  meanings. 
The  ideas  which  they  affix  to  such  words,  are  implied  in  the  passage, 
though  not  the  meaning  of  the  words  out  of  which  they  take  them.  But 
this,  which  is  harmless  with  respect  to  most  cases,  is  hurtful  in  all  points 
of  controversy,  as  it  gives  a  foundation  for  the  evasive  ingenuity  of 
sophistry  in  the  defence  of  error.  It  may  be  of  no  importance  to  correct 
the  lexicographer,  who,  from  finding  the  expressions  deusai  en  oino  and 
bapsai  en  oino  employed  for  the  same  thing,  asserts  that  here  bapsai  sig- 
nifies to  moisten.  But  it  is  of  great  importance  when  the  error  is  brought 
to  apply  to  an  ordinance  of  Christ.  Besides,  it  introduces  confusion  into 
language,  and  makes  the  acquisition  of  it  much  more  difficult  to  learners., 
The  mind  must  be  stored  with  a  number  of  different  meanings  in  which 
there  is  no  real  difference.  What  an  insurmountable  task  would  it  be 
to  master  a  language,  if,  in  reality,  words  had  as  many  different  mean- 
ings as  lexicons  represent  them !  Parkhurst  gives  six  meanings  to 
baptizo.  I  undertake  to  prove  that  it  has  but  one ;  yet  he  and  I  do  not 
differ  about  the  primary  meaning  of  this  word.  I  blame  him  for  giving 
different  meanings,  when  there  is  no  real  difference  in  the  meaning  of 
this  word.  He  assigns  to  it  figurative  meanings.  I  maintain,  that  in 
figures  there  is  no  different  meaning  of  the  word.  It  is  only  a  figurative 
application.  The  meaning  of  the  word  is  always  the  same.  Nor  does 
any  one  need  to  have  a  figurative  application  explained  in  any  other 
way,  than  by  giving  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word.  When  this  is 
known,  it  must  be  a  bad  figure  that  does  not  contain  its  own  light.  It 
is  useless  to  load  lexicons  with  figurative  applications,  except  as  a  con- 
cordance. 

Polybius,  vol.  iii.  p.  311  ult.  applies  the  word  to  soldiers  passing 
through  water,  immersed  up  to  the  breast.     Here  surely  the  word  cannot 

8 


58  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

mean  pouring  or  sprinkling.  The  soldiers  in  passing  through  the  water 
were  dipped  as  far  as  the  breast.  Strabo  also  applies  the  word  to  Alex- 
ander's soldiers  marching  a  whole  day  through  the  tide,  between  the 
mountain  Climax  and  the  sea,  (lib.  xiv.  p.  982,)  baptized  up  to  the 
middle.     Surely  this  baptism  was  immersion. 

Plutarch,  speaking  of  a  Roman  general,  dying  of  his  wounds,  says, 
that  having  dipped  his  hand  in  blood,  he  wrote  the  inscription  for  a 
trophy.  Here  the  mode  of  the  action  cannot  be  questioned.  The 
instrument  of  writing  is  dipped  in  the  colouring  fluid. 

Diodorus  Siculus,  speaking  of  the  sinking  of  animals  in  water,  says, 
that  when  the  water  overflows,  "  many  of  the  land  animals,  immersed  in 
the  river,  perish."  This  baptism  also  is  immersion.  The  whole  land 
was  overwhelmed  with  water.  This  itself,  upon  a  principle  before  ex- 
plained, might  be  called  a  baptism  or  immersion,  in  perfect  consistency 
with  the  modal  meaning  of  the  word.  However,  it  is  not  the  land,  but 
the  land  animals,  that  are  here  said  to  be  baptized.  These  would  at 
first  swim,  but  they  would  soon  sink,  and  be  entirely  immersed.  There 
is  here  then  no  catachrestic  extension  of  the  word,  as  in  the  cases  which 
I  have  illustrated  in  another  place.  The  sinking  of  animals  in  water  is 
here  called  baptism.  What  then  is  baptism  but  immersion  1  Upon  the 
principle  of  giving  secondary  meanings  to  words,  which  has  been  resisted 
by  me,  drown  might  be  given  as  an  additional  meaning  to  baptizo,  from 
the  authority  of  this  passage.  As  the  animals  were  drowned  by  immer- 
sion, this  immersion  might  be  called  drowning. 

Lucian  uses  the  word  in  a  like  case,  and  with  circumstances  that 
explain  the  former  example.  Towards  the  end  of  the  dialogue,  he  makes 
Timon,  the  man-hater,  say,  that  if  he  saw  a  man  carried  down  the 
stream,  and  crying  for  help,  he  would  baptize  him — "  If  in  icinter,  the 
river  should  carry  away  any  one  with  its  stream,  and  the  person  with 
outstretched  hands  should  beg  to  be  taken  out,  that  he  should  drive  him 
from  the  bank,  and  plunge  him  headlong,  so  that  he  would  not  be  able 
again  to  lift  up  his  head  above  water."  Here  is  a  baptism,  the  mode  of 
which  cannot  be  mistaken.  Timon's  baptism  was  certainly  immersion. 
To  resist  such  evidence,  requires  a  hardihood  which  I  do  not  envy. 
Having  such  examples  before  my  eyes,  I  cannot  resist  God,  to  please 
men.  To  attempt  to  throw  doubt  on  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo, 
is  as  vain  as  to  question  the  signification  of  the  word  dip.  The  latter 
is  not  more  definitely  expressive  of  mode  in  the  English,  than  the  former 
is  in  Greek.  The  only  circumstance  that  has  enabled  men  to  raise  a 
cloud  about  baptizo  is,  that  it  belongs  to  a  dead  language.  There  never 
was  a  word  in  any  language,  the  meaning  of  which  is  more  definite,  or 
which  is  capable  of  being  more  clearly  ascertained. 

The  sinner  is  represented  by  Porphyry,  (p.  282,)  as  baptized  up  to 
his  head,  in  Styx,  a  celebrated  river  in  hell.  Is  there  any  question 
about  the  mode  of  this  baptism  ? 

Dr.  Gale  gives  some  striking  examples  from  Strabo.  "  Strabo,"  says 
he,  "  is  very  plain  in  several  instances :  Speaking  of  the  lake  near 
Agrigentum,  a  town  on  the  south  shore  of  Sicily,  now  called  Gergenti, 
he  says,  things  which  otherwise  will  not  swim,  do  not  sink  in  the  ivater  of 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  59 

the  lake,  but  float  like  wood.  And  there  is  a  rivulet  in  the  south  parts 
of  Cappadocia,  he  tells  us,  whose  tcaters  are  so  buoyant,  that  if  an  ar- 
row is  thrown  in,  it  will  hardly  sink  or  be  dipped  into  them."  "  In 
another  place,  ascribing  the  fabulous  properties  of  the  asphaltites  to 
the  lake  Sirbon,  he  says,  the  bitumen  floats  atop,  because  of  the  nature 
of  the  water,  which  admits  no  diving ;  for  if  a  man  goes  into  it,  he  can- 
not sink,  or  be  dipped,  but  is  forcibly  kept  above."  Now,  in  these  seve- 
ral passages,  the  modal  meaning  of  the  word  is  confirmed  in  so  clear, 
express,  and  decisive  a  manner,  that  obstinacy  itself  cannot  find  a  plau- 
sible objection.  Things  that  sink  in  other  water,  will  not  sink  or  be 
baptized  in  the  lake  near  Agrigentum.  This  is  mode,  and  nothing  but 
mode.  It  is  immersion,  and  nothing  but  immersion.  Sprinkling,  and 
pouring,  and  popping,  and  dropping,  and  wetting,  and  washing,  and 
purifying,  and  imbuing,  and  dedicating ,  and  devoting,  and  consecrating, 
with  all  the  various  meanings  that  have  ever  been  forced  on  this  Word, 
are  meanings  invented  merely  to  serve  a  purpose.  And  if  the  sinking 
of  an  arrow  in  water  is  called  its  baptism,  what  can  baptism  mean  but 
immersion  ?  If,  when  the  buoyancy  of  water  will  not  suffer  a  person  to 
sink,  the  idea  is  expressed  by  baptizo,  what  can  baptism  be  but  an  ope- 
ration of  the  same  nature  with  sinking  or  diving,  which  are  used  here 
as  nearly  synonymous  terms  with  that  which  signifies  to  baptize?  It 
may  as  well  be  said  that  sprinkling  or  pouring,  is  sinking  or  diving,  as 
that  it  is  baptism. 

Two  Greek  critics  are  quoted  by  Dr.  Gale,  as  applying  the  word  in 
exhibiting  the  beauty  of  Homer's  representation  of  the  death  of  one  of 
his  heroes  :  "He  struck  him  across  the  neck  with  his  heavy  sword,  and  the 
whole  sword  became  warm  tcith  blood."  On  this,  Pseudo  Didymus  says, 
that  the  sword  is  represented  as  dipped  in  blood.  And  Dionysius  says, 
"In  that  phrase,  Homer  expresses  himself  with  the  greatest  energy,  signi- 
fying that  the  sword  was  so  dipped  in  blood,  that  it  was  even  heated  by  it." 

"  Heraclides  Ponticus,"  says  Dr.  Gale,  "  a  disciple  of  Aristotle,  may 
help  us  also  in  fixing  the  sense  of  the  word;  for,  moralizing  the  fable 
of  Mars  being  taken  by  Vulcan,  he  says,  Neptune  is  ingeniously  supposed 
to  deliver  Mars  from  Vulcan,  to  signify,  that  when  a  piece  of  iron  is  ta- 
ken red  hot  out  of  the  fire,  and  put  into  water  (baptizetai,)  the  heat  is  re- 
pelled and  extinguished,  by  the  contrary  nature  of  water."  Here  we  see 
that  the  immersion  of  hot  iron  in  water,  for  the  purpose  of  cooling  it,  is 
denominated  a  baptism. 

Themistius,  Orat.  IV.  p.  133,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Gale,  says,  "The  pilot 
cannot  tell  but  he  may  save  one  in  the  voyage  that  had  better  be  drowned, 
sunk  into  the  sea."     Such  a  baptism,  surely,  would  be  immersion. 

The  word  occurs  in  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
is  faithfully  rendered  dip  in  our  version.  2  Kings,  v.  14.  Naaman  went 
down,  and  dipped  himself  seven  times  in  Jordan.  Here  bathing  in  a  river 
is  called  baptism.  What  more  do  we  want,  then,  to  teach  us  the  mode 
of  this  ordinance  of  Christ?  If  there  was  not  another  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture to  throw  light  on  the  institution,  as  far  as  respects  mode,  is  not 
this,  to  every  teachable  mind,  perfectly  sufficient?  But  it  seems,  we 
are  crying  victory  before  the  field  is  won.     This  passage,  which  we 


60  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

think  so  decisive,  has  a  far  different  aspect  to  others.  On  the  contrary,  it 
is  made  to  afford  evidence  against  us.  Well,  this  is  strange  indeed ;  but 
ingenuity  has  many  shifts.  Let  us  see  how  artifice  can  involve  the  pas- 
sage in  a  cloud.  Nothing  is  more  easy.  Does  not  the  prophet  command 
Naaman  to  wash  ?  if,  then,  he  obeyed  this  command  by  baptizing  him- 
self, baptizing  must  signify  washing;  For  the  sake  of  argument,  I  will 
grant  this  reasoning,  for  a  moment.  If  then,  this  is  so,  go,  my  brethren, 
and  wash  the  person  to  be  baptized,  as  you  think  Naaman  washed  him- 
self, from  head  to  foot.  This  will  show  that  you  respect  the  example. 
In  what  manner  soever  the  water  was  applied  to  Naaman,  he  was  bathed 
all  over.  If  the  word  signifies  to  wash  the  whole  body,  who  but  the 
Pope  himself  would  take  on  him  to  substitute  the  sprinkling  of  a  few 
drops,  in  the  place  of  this  universal  washing  ? 

But  I  do  not  admit  the  reasoning,  that,  from  this  passage,  concludes 
that  baptizo  signifies  to  wash,  although  no  instance  can  be  produced 
more  plausible  in  favour  of  that  opinion.  This  passage  is  a  complete 
illustration  of  my  canon.  The  two  words,  louo  and  baptizo,  are  here 
used  interchangeably,  yet  they  are  not  of  the  same  signification.  Not  of 
the  same  signification!  it  may  be  asked,  with  surprise.  Elisha  com- 
mands him  to  wash ;  he  obeys  by  baptizing  himself;  must  not  baptizing, 
then,  be  icashing?  I  think  none  of  my  opponents  will  wish  a  stronger 
statement  of  their  objection  than  I  have  made  for  them.  But  my  doctrine 
remains  uninjured  by  the  assault.  The  true  philologist  will  not  find  the 
smallest  difficulty  in  reconciling  this  passage  to  it.  The  words  louo  and 
baptizo  have  their  own  peculiar  meanings  even  here,  as  well  as  every 
where  else,  without  the  smallest  confusion  .  To  baptize  is  not  to  ivash ; 
but  to  baptize  in  a  river  or  in  any  pure  water,  implies  washing,  and  may 
be  used  for  it  in  certain  situations.  If  Naaman  clipped  himself  in  Jor- 
dan, he  was  washed.  It  comes  to  the  same  thing,  whether  a  physician 
says,  bathe  yourself  every  morning  in  the  sea,  or,  dip  yourself  every  morn- 
ing in  the  sea,  yet  the  words  bathe  and  dip  do  not  signify  the  same  thing. 
We  see,  then,  that  we  can  make  the  very  same  use  of  our  modal  word 
dip,  that  the  Greeks  made  of  their  baptizo.  No  man  who  understands 
English,  will  say  that  the  word  dip  and  the  word  bathe  signify  the  same 
thing,  yet,  in  certain  situations,  they  may  be  used  indifferently.  Per- 
sons at  bath  may  ask  each  other,  did  you  dip  this  morning?  or  did  you 
bathe  this  morning?  To  dip  may  apply  to  the  defiling  of  any  thing,  as 
well  as  to  icashing.  It  expresses  no  more  than  the  mode.  It  is  the 
situation  in  which  it  stands,  and  the  word  with  which  it  is  construed, 
that  determine  the  object  of  the  application  of  the  mode.  To  dip  in 
pure  water,  is  to  wash ;  to  dip  in  colouring  matter,  is  to  dye ;  to  dip  into 
mire,  is  to  defile.  None  of  these  ideas,  however,  are  in  the  word  dip 
itself.  No  word  could  determine  mode,  according  to  the  principles  of 
criticism  employed  by  writers  on  this  subject. 

The  error  in  this  criticism  is  that  which  I  have  before  exposed.  It 
supposes  that,  if  in  any  circumstances  two  words  can  be  used  inter- 
changeably, they  must  signify  the  same  thing ;  and  that  controversialists 
are  at  liberty  to  reciprocate  their  meanings,  as  often  as  the  necessity  of 
their  cause  demands  it.     This  is  a  source  of  error  more  fruitful  in  false 


THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  61 

criticism,  than  any  other  of  its  numerous  resources.  There  is  a  spe- 
ciousness  in  it  that  has  imposed  on  lexicographers,  critics,  and  com- 
mentators. They  have  universally,  so  far  as  I  know,  taken  as  a  first 
principle,  that  which  is  a  mere  figment. 

The  Sibylline  verse  concerning  the  city  of  Athens,  quoted  by  Plutarch 
in  his  Life  of  Theseus,  most  exactly  determines  the  meaning  of  baptizo. 

"  Thou  mayest  be  dipped,  O  bladder !  but  thou  art  not  fated  to  sink." 

The  remark  of  Vossius  and  Turretine  upon  this  is  :  "  Hence  it  ap 
pears  that  baptizein  is  more  than  cpipolazein,  which  is  to  swim  lightly 
on  the  surface,  and  less  than  dunein,  which  is  to  go  down  to  the  bottom, 
so  as  to  be  destroyed."  In  the  latter  part  of  this  distinction,  they  are 
certainly  mistaken,  as  to  both  verbs.  Baptizein  may  be  applied  to  what 
goes  to  the  bottom  and  perishes ;  and  dunein  very  frequently  applies  to 
things  that  sink  without  destruction.  It  is  the  usual  word  applied  to 
the  setting  of  the  sun,  or  its  apparent  sinking  in  the  ocean ;  and  it  is 
the  word  which  Homer  applies  to  the  sinking  of  the  marine  deities  who 
live  in  the  bottom  of  the  sea.  Indeed,  the  word  has  no  more  destruc- 
tion in  it  than  baptizo  itself,  which  is  occasionally  applied  to  the  sink- 
ing of  ships.  The  matter  of  fact  is,  that  whether  the  sinking  object  is 
destroyed  or  not,  is  learned  from  neither  word,  but  from  the  circum- 
stances in  which  it  is  used.  If  baptizein  is  applied  to  a  ship  going  to 
the  bottom,  its  destruction  is  known  without  being  expressed  by  this 
word :  if  dunein  is  applied  to  Neptune,  Thetis,  or  a  sea  nymph,  it  is  in 
the  same  way  known  that  there  is  no  destruction.  The  obvious  and 
characteristic  distinction  between  the  words  is,  that  dunein  is  a  neuter 
verb,  signifying  to  sink,  not  to  cause  something  else  to  sink.  But  a 
thing  that  sinks  of  itself,  will  doubtless  sink  to  the  bottom,  if  not  pre- 
vented ;  and  if  it  is  subject  to  destruction  by  such  sinking,  it  will  perish. 
It  is  therefore  characteristically  applied  to  things  that  sink  to  the  bottom. 
But  baptizein  signifies  merely  to  dip,  without  respect  to  depth  or  conse- 
quence, and  is  as  proper  to  the  immersion  of  an  insect  on  the  surface 
of  the  deepest  part  of  the  ocean,  as  to  the  sinking  of  a  ship  or  a  whale 
in  the  same.  Both  words  might  in  many  cases  be  applied  to  the  same 
thing  indifferently,  but  in  their  characteristic  meaning,  as  in  the  above 
verse,  they  are  opposed.  The  expression  in  this  verse  is  allegorical, 
literally  referring  to  a  bladder  or  leathern  bottle,  which,  when  empty, 
swims  on  the  surface :  if  sufficiently  filled,  will  dip,  but  will  not  sink. 
In  this  view,  it  asserts  that  the  Athenian  state,  though  it  might  be  occa- 
sionally overwhelmed  with  calamities,  yet  would  never  perish.  There  is 
another  sense  which  the  expression  might  have,  which  is  very  suitable 
to  the  ambiguity  of  an  oracle.  "  You  may  yourselves  destroy  the  state, 
otherwise  it  is  imperishable."  A  leathern  bottle  might  be  so  filled  as 
to  force  it  to  the  bottom,  though  it  would  never  sink  of  itself.  Nothing 
can  more  decisively  determine  the  exact  characteristic  import  of  bap~ 
tizein,  than  this  verse.     It  is  dip,  and  nothing  but  dip. 

Mr.  Ewing's  learned  friend,  in  remarking  on  this  word,  falls  into  an 
error  opposite  to  that  of  Vossius  and  Turretine.  They  make  the  word 
denote  to  dip,  without  going  to  the  bottom  :  he  makes  it  to  dip,  so  as  to 


62  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

continue  under  water.  "  Our  Anti-psedo-baptist  friends,"  says,  he,  "  when 
they  contend,  that  from  the  examples  adduced  by  them,  immersion  is  the 
only  sense  in  which  baptizo,  in  its  literal  acceptation,  was  employed, 
do  not  seem  aware  that  almost  all  of  these  examples  imply  not  a  mere 
dipping,  or  immersion  immediately  followed  by  an  emersion,  but  a  con- 
tinued and  permanent  immersion,  a  continuance  under  water."  Now 
upon  this  I  remark,  first,  that  if  there  is  one  example  in  which  it  applies 
to  an  immersion,  followed  by  an  emersion,  it  is  as  good  as  a  thousand 
to  determine  that  it  may  apply  to  such  immersions.  I  observe  in  the 
second  place,  that  not  one  of  the  examples  implies  a  continuance  under 
water.  When  the  word  is  applied  to  a  drowning  man  or  a  sinking  ship, 
it  no  more  implies  the  permanence  of  the  immersion,  than  when  Plu- 
tarch uses  it  to  signify  the  dipping  of  the  hand  in  blood.  The  word 
has  no  reference  to  what  follows  the  immersion ;  and  whether  the  thing 
immersed  lies  at  the  bottom,  or  is  taken  up,  cannot  be  learned  from  the 
word,  but  from  the  connexion  and  circumstances.  It  is  a  childish  error 
to  suppose,  that  we  must  have  a  model  for  Christian  baptism  in  the 
meaning  of  the  word  that  designates  it.  But  if  this  argument  had  any 
foundation,  what  does  the  gentleman  mean  by  it?  Does  he  think  that 
baptized  persons  ought  to  be  drowned  ?  This  is  surely  very  perverse. 
When  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  word  denotes  to  dip,  they  endea- 
vour to  make  it  more  than  dipping.  Then  by  all  means  let  them 
have  baptism  in  their  own  way.  When  we  have  brought  them 
under  the  water,  perhaps  they  will  not  make  conscience  of  lying  at  the 
bottom. 

The  example  referred  to  by  Hammond  is  also  irresistible.  It  is  said  of 
Eupolis,  that  being  thrown  into  the  sea,  he  was  baptized.  This  baptism 
surely  was  immersion.  This  example  shows  us  also,  that  the  word  may 
be  applied  when  the  object  is  destroyed,  as  well  as  when  it  is  raised 
again  out  of  the  water,  though  in  general,  things  dipped  are  taken  imme- 
diately up  after  the  dipping.  The  baptism  spoken  of  by  Plutarch,  must 
also  be  immersion, — Baptize  yourself  into  the  sea. 

The  expression  quoted  by  Hedericus  from  Heliod.  b.  v.  is  equally 
decisive,  to  baptize  into  the  lake.  And  that  from  ^Esop,  the  ship  being 
in  danger  of  sinking.  If  a  ship  sinking  in  the  ocean  is  baptized,  bap- 
tism must  be  immersion. 

But  the  language  of  no  writer  can  have  more  authority  on  this  sub- 
ject than  that  of  Josephus.  A  Jew  who  wrote  in  the  Greek  language 
in  the  apostolic  age,  must  be  the  best  judge  of  the  meaning  of  Greek 
words  employed  by  Jews  in  his  own  time.  Now  this  author  uses  the 
word  frequently,  and  always  in  the  sense  of  immersion.  He  uses  it 
also  sometimes  figuratively  with  the  same  literal  reference.  Speaking 
of  the  purification  from  defilement  by  a  dead  body,  he  says,  "  and  hav- 
ing dipped  some  of  the  ashes  into  spring  water,  they  sprinkled,"  &,c. 
Here  we  see  the  characteristic  distinction  between  baptizo  and  raino. 
The  one  is  to  dip,  the  other  to  sprinkle.     Antiq.  1.  iv.  c.  4,  p.  96. 

On  this  example,  Mr.  Ewing's  friend  remarks : — "  Now,  upon  looking 
into  the  Levitical  law  upon  this  particular  point,  (Numb.  xix.  \1,)  we 
find  the  direction  was,  '  They  shall  take  of  the  ashes,  and  running  tcattr 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  63 

shall  be  put  thereto.'  Here,  then,  the  putting  running  water  to  ashes,  is 
expressly  termed  baptisantes  tes  nephras."  Let  the  gentleman  look  a  little 
more  closely,  and  he  will  see  that  his  observation  is  not  correct.  It  is 
true  that  Numb.  xix.  17,  and  the  above  passage  from  Josephus,  refer  to 
the  same  thing ;  but  they  do  not  relate  it  in  the  same  manner.  The 
Septuagint  directs,  that  water  shall  be  poured  upon  the  ashes  into  a 
vessel ;  Josephus  relates  the  fact  as  if  the  ashes  were  thrown  into  the 
water.  Now  this  might  make  no  difference  as  to  the  water  of  purifica- 
tion, but  it  was  a  difference  as  to  the  mode  of  preparing  it.  Nothing, 
then,  can  be  farther  from  truth,  than  that  the  putting  of  the  water  on 
the  ashes,  according  to  Numb.  xix.  17,  is  called  by  Josephus,  the  bap- 
tizing of  the  ashes.  If  Josephus  speaks  of  the  baptizing  of  the  ashes,  he 
represents  the  ashes  as  being  put  into  the  water,  and  not  the  water  as 
being  poured  on  the  ashes.  He  uses  the  verb  enicmi  as  well  as  baptizo. 
According  to  Josephus,  then,  the  ashes  were  dipped,  or  put  into  the 
water  ;  though,  according  to  the  Septuagint,  the  water  was  poured  out 
into  a  vessel  on  the  ashes. 

Speaking  of  the  storm  that  threatened  destruction  to  the  ship  that 
carried  Jonah,  he  says,  "  when  the  ship  was  on  the  point  of  sinking,  or 
just  about  to  be  baptized." — 1.  ix.  c.  10,  p.  285.  What  was  the  mode  of 
this  baptism? 

In  the  history  of  his  own  life,  Josephus  gives  an  account  of  a  remark- 
able escape  which  he  had  in  a  voyage  to  Rome,  when  the  ship  itself 
foundered  in  the  midst  of  the  sea :  "  For  our  ship  having  been  baptized 
or  immersed  in  the  midst  of  the  Adriatic  sea,"  &c.  Is  there  any  doubt 
about  the  mode  of  this  baptism  ?  p.  626. 

Speaking  of  the  murder  of  Aristobulus,  by  command  of  Herod,  he 
says,  "  The  boy  was  sent  to  Jericho  by  night,  and  there,  by  command, 
having  been  immersed  in  a  pond  by  the  Galatians,  he  perished."  Jewish 
War,  Book  I.  p.  696.  The  same  transaction  is  related  in  the  Antiqui- 
ties in  these  words :  "  Pressing  him  down  always,  as  he  was  swim- 
ming, and  baptizing  him  as  in  sport,  they  did  not  give  over  till  they 
entirely  drowned  him."  Can  anything  be  more  express  and  exact  than 
this?  Here  the  baptizers  drowned  the  baptized  person  in  the  pool, 
where  they  were  bathing,     p.  458. 

Describing  the  death  of  one  Simon  by  his  own  hand,  after  he  had 
killed  his  father,  mother,  wife,  and  children,  lest  they  should  fall  into  the 
hands  of  the  enemy,  he  says,  "  He  baptized  or  plunged  his  sword  up  to 
the  hilt  into  his  own  bowels."  The  mode  here  is  not  doubtful ;  the  sword 
was  dipped  in  his  body.  We  have  previously  seen  bapto  used  in  like 
circumstances,  and  ebapse  would  have  been  equally  proper  here,  accord- 
ing to  the  observation  already  made,  that  words  which  have  a  charac- 
teristic distinction,  may,  in  certain  situations,  be  interchangeable. 
Ebaptise,  he  caused  it  to  dip,  may  denote  a  greater  effort  than  ebapse, 
dipped  it.     Jos.  Bell.  Jud.  1.  ii.  p.  752. 

A  little  afterwards,  he  applies  the  word  to  the  sinking  of  a  ship : 
"  After  this  misfortune  of  Cestius,  many  of  the  Jews  of  distinction  left 
the  city,  as  people  swim  away  from  a  sinking  ship."  Here  a  sinking 
ship  is  supposed  to  be  baptized  by  sinking,     p.  757. 


64  THE   MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

He  applies  the  word  to  the  immersion  of  the  ships  which  carried  the 
people  of  Joppa,  after  being  driven  out  of  the  city  by  the  Romans : 
"  The  wave  high  raised,  baptized  them."  Here  is  a  sublime  baptism. 
The  surge,  rising  like  mountains  over  the  ships,  immersed  and  sunk 
them  to  the  bottom.  The  surge  is  the  baptizer,  the  ships  are  baptized, 
and  this  baptism  is  the  sinking  of  them  to  the  bottom.  Joseph.  Jewish 
War,  Book  III.  p.  737. 

Towards  the  end  of  the  same  book,  he  thus  speaks  of  those  who 
perished  in  the  lake  of  Gennesareth,  having  fled  from  the  city  of  Tarichae : 
"  They  were  baptized  or  sunk  with  the  ships  themselves,  p.  792.  Here 
the  Roman  soldiers  were  the  baptizers ;  and  in  executing  this  duty,  they 
sunk  both  ships  and  men. 

Hippocrates  uses  this  word  sometimes,  and  always  in  the  sense  for 
which  I  contend.  We  have  seen  that  he  uses  bapto  very  often  :  I  have 
not  found  baptizo  more  than  four  times.  This  circumstance  sufficiently 
proves,  that  though  the  words  are  so  nearly  related,  they  are  not  per- 
fectly identical  in  signification.  The  first  occurrence  of  it  is  in  p.  254  : 
"  Dip  it  again  in  breast-milk  and  Egyptian  ointment."  He  is  speaking 
of  a  blister  which  was  first  to  be  dipped  in  the  oil  of  roses,  and  if  when 
thus  applied,  it  should  be  too  painful,  it  was  to  be  dipped  again  in  the 
manner  above  stated.  The  first  dipping,  as  we  have  seen  from  a  pre- 
ceding quotation,  is  expressed  by  bapsas.  This  shows  that,  in  the 
radical  signification  of  dipping,  these  words  are  perfectly  of  the  same 
import ;  and  that  though  they  have  their  characteristic  distinction,  there 
are  situations  in  which  they  are  interchangeable,  where  the  character- 
istic difference  may  be  expressed,  but  it  is  not  necessary. 

The  same  writer  gives  us  the  clearest  insight  into  the  meaning  of  this 
word,  by  twice  comparing  a  peculiar  kind  of  breathing  in  patients,  to 
the  breathing  of  a  person  after  being  immersed  :  "  He  breathed  as  per- 
sons breathe  after  being  baptized."  p.  340.  The  same  comparison 
occurs  again,  p.  357,  in  the  following  words :  "  He  breathed  as  persons 
breathe  after  being  baptized."  Surely  unbelief  must  be  obstinate,  if 
this  does  not  remove  it.  The  breathing  of  persons  under  the  disease 
referred  to,  is  like  the  breathing  of  a  person  after  baptism.  Can  any- 
thing, then,  be  more  obvious,  than  that  baptism  is  an  immersion  in  wa- 
ter, even  an  immersion  over  head,  so  as  to  stop  the  breath  till  it  is  over  1 

Hippocrates  applies  the  word  also  to  a  ship  sinking,  by  being  over- 
burthened :  "  Shall  I  not  laugh  at  the  man  who  baptizes  or  immerses 
his  ship,  by  overlading  it ;  then  complains  of  the  sea,  that  it  ingulfs 
it  with  its  cargo?"  p.  532.  What  sort  of  baptism  was  this?  Is  it 
possible  that  a  mind  really  thirsting  for  the  knowledge  of  God's  laws, 
can  resist  such  evidence  ?  Here  we  see  baptizo  not.  only  most  definitely 
signifying  to  immerse,  but  contrasted  with  another  word,  which  signifies 
this  with  additional  circumstances.  Baptizo  is  used  to  denote  that 
immersion  that  takes  place  when  a  ship  is  weighed  down  by  its  burthen, 
so  as  to  be  completely  under  water  :  katabutliizo  signifies  to  make  to  go 
down  into  the  abyss.  Yet  we  have  more  than  once  met  with  instances 
in  which  baptizo  itself  is  applied  to  a  ship  going  to  the  bottom.  But  as 
I  observed  in  such  cases,  it  is  not  from  the  word  itself  that  it  is  known 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  65 

that  the  ship  goes  to  the  bottom,  but  from  the  circumstances.  It  does 
not,  by  virtue  of  its  own  intrinsic  meaning,  denote  going  to  the  bottom, 
but  to  dip  or  immerse,  without  reference  to  depth.  It  may,  then,  be 
applied  when  the  operation  is  extended  to  the  bottom,  as  well  as  when 
it  is  confined  to  the  surface.  But  when  it  is  so  applied,  it  does  not 
definitely  distinguish  the  idea  of  depth.  When  this  is  intended  to  be 
expressed,  another  word,  as  in  the  present  case,  is  employed :  katabu- 
thizo  definitely  expresses  going  down  into  the  abyss. 

This  word  is  found  in  Polybius,  in  circumstances  that  leave  no  doubt 
of  its  signification.  He  applies  it  to  soldiers  wading  through  deep  wa- 
ter, and  expressly  limits  its  application  to  that  part  of  the  body  which 
was  covered  with  water :  "  The  foot  soldiers  passed  with  difficulty, 
baptized  or  immersed  up  to  the  breast."  Polyb.  iii.  c.  72.  Does  not  this 
decisively  determine  the  meaning  ofbaptizo?  They  were  not,  indeed, 
plunged  over  head  ;  but  for  this  reason,  a  limitation  is  introduced,  con- 
fining the  application  of  the  word  to  that  part  of  the  body  which  was 
under  water.     That  only  was  baptized  which  was  buried. 

The  same  author  gives  us  another  example  equally  decisive  :  "  They 
are  of  themselves  baptized  or  immersed,  and  sunk  in  the  marshes." 
v.  c.  47.  Here  baptizomai  is  coupled  with  Icataduno,  as  a  word  of  similar 
import,  though  not  exactly  synonymous :  the  former  denoting  simple 
immersion  ;  the  latter,  the  sinking  of  the  immersed  object  to  the  bottom. 

Dio  also  affords  evidence  decisive  of  the  same  meaning  :  "  They  are 
entirely  baptized,  sunk,  overwhelmed,  or  immersed."  xxxviii.  p.  84. 

He  applies  it,  as  we  have  seen  it  employed  by  others,  to  the  sinking 
of  ships :  "  So  great  a  storm  suddenly  arose  through  the  whole  country, 
that  the  boats  were  baptized  or  sunk  in  the  Tiber."  xxxvii.  What, 
then,  is  baptism  but  immersion? 

He  applies  it  in  the  same  way,  I.  492  :  "  How  could  it  escape  sinki?ig, 
from  the  very  multitude  of  rowers?"  We  see,  then,  that  the  classical 
writers  in  the  Greek  language,  without  exception,  know  nothing  of  this 
word  in  any  other  signification  than  that  of  immersing.  They  never 
apply  it  to  any  other  mode.  They  no  more  apply  it  to  pouring  or 
sprinkling,  &c.  than  to  rearming  or  cooling.  Such  significations  have 
been  conjured  up  by  profane  ingenuity,  endeavouring  to  force  the  words 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  into  agreement  with  the  long-established  practices 
of  men,  in  perverting  the  ordinances  of  God. 

Porphyry  applies  the  word  to  the  heathen  opinion  of  the  baptism  of 
the  wicked  in  Styx,  the  famous  lake  of  hell :  "  When  the  accused  person 
enters  the  lake,  if  he  is  innocent,  he  passes  boldly  through,  having  the 
water  up  to  his  knees ;  but  if  guilty,  having  advanced  a  little,  he  is 
plunged  or  baptized  up  to  the  head." — De  Styge,  p.  282.  The  baptism 
of  Styx,  then,  is  an  immersion  of  the  body  up  to  the  head.  The  part 
not  dipped  is  expressly  excepted. 

Diodorus  Siculus  applies  the  word  to  the  sinking  of  beasts  carried 
away  by  a  river  :  "  The  most  of  the  land  animals  being  caught  by  the 
river,  sinking  or  being  baptized,  perish  ;  but  some  escaping  to  the  higher 
grounds,  are  saved." — I.  p.  33.  Here  to  be  baptized,  is  to  sink  in  water. 
This  example  also  confirms  my  observation,  that  though  when  sinking  to 

9 


66  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

the  bottom,  or  sinking  in  the  great  deep  is  designed  to  be  distinguished  from 
simple  immersion,  baptizo  could  not  suit  the  situation ;  but  another  word, 
such  as  kataduno,  katabuthizo,  katapontizo,  &x.,  is  used  :  yet  baptizo  will 
apply  to  the  deepest  immersion,  and  to  destruction  by  immersion,  when 
there  is  no  contrast,  and  when  the  depth  and  destruction  are  known 
from  other  words  or  circumstances  in  the  connexion.  Baptizo  denotes 
simple  immersion,  yet  it  may  be  used  in  circumstances  when  that  im- 
mersion is  certainly  known  to  be  going  to  the  bottom,  and  being  destroyed. 

Section  XI. — There  are  instances  in  which  the  word  is  by  some 
translated  wash,  ^md  in  which  the  general  meaning  may  be  thus  well 
enough  expressed  in  a  free  version.  Still,  however,  the  word,  even  in 
such  situations,  does  not  express  the  idea  of  washing,  but  has  its  own 
peculiar  meaning  of  mode,  the  idea  of  washing  being  only  a  consequence 
from  the  dipping.  There  are  some  cases  in  which  it  is  pretended  that 
it  must  apply  to  purification  by  sprinking,  &c.  Now,  as  I  am  pledged 
to  show  that  the  word  does  not  signify  to  icash  in  any  manner,  I  am  still 
more  bound  to  show  that  it  does  not  denote  purification  by  sprinkling. 
I  shall  therefore  now  attend  to  this  part  of  the  subject. 

In  Ecclesiasticus  xxxiv.  30,  it  is  said,  "  He  that  washeth  himself 
because  of  a  dead  body,  and  toucheth  it  again,  what  availeth  his  washing?" 
Now  as  baptizomenos  is  the  word  here  used,  and  as  from  Numb.  xix.  18, 
we  learn  that  such  a  person  was  to  be  purified  by  sprinkling,  does  it 
follow  that  baptizo  must  signify  to  sprinkle,  or  to  purify  by  sprinkling? 
He  that  wishes  to  see  this  objection  honestly  stated  in  all  its  strength, 
and  refuted  in  the  most  triumphant  manner,  may  consult  Dr.  Gale's 
Reflections  on  Dr.  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism.  But  the  answer 
must  be  obvious  to  every  person  who  consults  Numb.  xix.  19,  which 
shows  that  sprinkling  was  but  a  part  of  that  purification,  and  that  the 
unclean  person  was  also  bathed  in  icatcr.  It  is  this  bathing  that  is  effected 
by  baptism.  The  passage  in  question  ought  to  be  translated, — "  He  that 
dippeth  or  baptizeth  himself  because  of  a  dead  body,  and  toucheth  it 
again,  what  availeth  his  dipping  or  baptism  ?"  The  word  baptizo  has 
here  its  appropriate  meaning,  without  the  smallest  deviation. 

Besides,  had  there  been  no  immersion  or  bathing  of  the  whole  body 
enjoined  in  Numbers,  I  should  utterly  despise  this  objection.  Though 
God  had  not  made  bathing  of  the  body  a  part  of  this  purification,  might 
not  the  traditions  of  the  elders  have  made  the  addition  ?  And  would  not 
this  have  been  sufficient  authority  for  the  author  of  this  apocryphal 
book  to  make  a  ground  of  his  reasoning?  When  I  have  proved  the 
meaning  of  a  Greek  word,  by  the  authority  of  the  whole  consent  of 
Greek  literature,  I  will  not  surrender  it  to  the  supposition  of  the  strict 
adherence  of  the  Jewish  nation,  in  the  time  of  the  writing  of  the 
Apocrypha,  to  the  Mosaic  ritual.  We  know  that  they  made  many  addi- 
tions, and  that  these  were  esteemed  as  of  equal  authority  with  the  rites 
of  Moses. 

For  a  very  full  and  interesting  discussion  of  Luke  xi.  38,  and  Mark 
vii.  4,  let  the  reader  consult  Dr.  Gale,  p.  125.  Here  he  will  find  a 
triumphant  answer  to  every  quibble  from  Dr.  Wall.     But  as  the  text 


THE    MODE    OP   BAPTISM.  67 

itself  is  perfectly  sufficient  for  ray  purpose,  I  shall  not  swell  my  volume 
with  quotations  from  that  learned  writer.  In  our  version,  Luke  xi.  38, 
ebaptisthe  is  translated  wash.  "  And  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  mar- 
velled that  he  had  not  first  washed  before  dinner."  The  objection  is, 
does  not  baptizo,  then,  sometimes  denote  to  ivash  ?  Nay,  farther,  as  the 
Jews  washed  the  hands  by  having  water  poured  on  them,  and  as  this 
passage  respects  the  washing  of  the  hands,  is  there  not  here  evidence  that 
the  word  in  question  sometimes  signifies  to  wash  by  pouring  ?  This  surely 
is  as  strong  a  statement  of  their  objection  as  our  opponents  can  wish. 
Yet,  in  all  its  plausibility,  I  despise  it.  Even  here,  the  word  signifies 
to  dip,  and  not  to  ivash.  Dipping  is  the  thing  expressed ;  washing  is  the 
consequence,  known  by  inference.  It  is  dipping,  whether  it  relates  to 
the  hands  or  the  whole  body.  But  many  examples  from  the  Jews,  and 
also  from  the  Greeks,  it  is  said,  prove  that  the  hands  were  washed  by 
pouring  water  on  them  by  a  servant ;  and  I  care  not  that  ten  thousand 
such  examples  were  brought  forward.  Though  this  might  be  the  usual 
mode  of  washing  the  hands,  it  might  not  be  the  only  mode,  which  is 
abundantly  sufficient  for  my  purpose.  The  possibility  of  this  is  enough 
for  me ;  but  Dr.  Gale  has  proved  from  Dr.  Pococke,  that  the  Jews  some- 
times washed  their  hands  by  dipping.  People  of  distinction  might  have 
water  poured  on  their  hands  by  servants,  but  it  is  not  likely  that  this 
was  the  common  practice  of  the  body  of  the  people,  in  any  nation.  The 
examples  from  Homer  cannot  inform  us  with  respect  to  the  practice  of 
the  common  people. 

But  I  say  this  without  any  view  to  my  argument  in  this  place,  for  it 
is  evident  that  the  word  does  not  here  refer  to  the  washing  of  the  hands. 
It  may  apply  to  any  part,  as  well  as  to  the  v/hole ;  but  whenever  it  is 
used  without  its  regimen  expressed,  or  understood  in  phrases  much 
used,  it  applies  to  the  whole  body.  When  a  part  only  is  dipped,  the  part 
is  mentioned,  or  some  part  is  excepted,  as  is  the  case  with  louo.  The 
passage,  then,  ought  to  have  been  translated, — "  And  when  the  Pharisee 
saw  it,  he  marvelled  that  he  was  not  immersed  before  dinner."  The 
Pharisees  themselves,  on  some  occasions,  would  not  eat  till  they  had 
used  the  bath,  and  this  Pharisee  might  expect  still  more  eminent  devo- 
tion from  Jesus.  Indeed,  to  use  the  bath  before  dinner,  was  a  very 
common  practice  in  eastern  countries ;  and  the  practice  would  be  still 
more  in  vogue  with  those  who  considered  it  a  religious  purification.  But 
there  is  no  need  to  refer  to  the  practice  of  the  time,  nor  to  ransack  the 
writings  of  the  Rabbins,  for  the  practice  of  the  Jews.  We  have  here 
the  authority  of  the  Holy  Spirit  for  the  Jewish  custom.  He  uses  the 
word  baptizo,  and  that  word  signifies  to  dip,  and  only  to  dip.  If  I  have 
established  the  acceptation  of  this  word  by  the  consent  of  use,  even  an 
inexplicable  difficulty  in  this  case  would  not  affect  the  certainty  of  my 
conclusions.  But  the  difficulty  is  not  inexplicable.  What  should  hinder 
the  word  to  have  here  its  usual  import? 

Mark  vii.  4,  our  translators  render,  "except  they  wash,  they  eat  not." 
Now,  my  opponents  may  say,  does  not  baptizo  here  signify  to  wash?  I 
answer,  No.  Dipping  is  the  thing  expressed ;  but  it  is  used  in  such 
circumstances  as  to  imply  loashing.    The  washing  is  a  consequence  from 


68  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

the  dipping.  It  ought  to  have  been  translated,  "  except  they  dip  them- 
selves, they  eat  not."  In  the  preceding  context,  we  are  told  that  usually 
they  do  not  eat  without  washing  their  hands.  Here  we  are  told  that  when 
they  come  from  market,  they  eat  not  till  they  are  dipped  or  baptized. 
Dr.  Campbell's  notion,  that  nipto  and  baptizo  here  both  refer  to  the 
hands,  the  one  to  washing  by  having  water  poured  on  them,  and  the 
other  by  dipping  them,  I  do  not  approve.  For,  though  baptizo  will  apply 
to  the  dipping  of  the  hands,  as  well  as  to  the  dipping  of  the  whole  body, 
yet  when  no  part  is  mentioned  or  excepted,  the  whole  body  is  always 
meant.  His  view  of  the  matter  I  consider  nothing  but  an  ingenious 
conceit,  without  any  authority  from  the  practice  of  the  language.  Nipto 
cannot  denote  a  peculiar  mode  of  washing,  in  distinction  from  another 
mode.  Besides,  to  wash  anything  by  mere  dipping,  is  not  so  thorough 
a  washing  as  may  be  expressed  by  nipto.  Now,  if  the  words  both  refer 
to  the  washing  of  the  hands,  the  first  will  be  the  best  washing,  which  is 
contrary  to  Dr.  Campbell's  supposition.  Dr.  Campbell,  indeed,  with 
Pearce  and  Wetstein,  understands  pvgme  of  a  handful  of  water.  But 
they  produce  no  example  in  which  pugme  has  this  signification,  and 
therefore  the  opinion  has  no  authority.  Indeed,  there  is  a  self-contra- 
diction in  the  opinion  of  these  learned  writers  on  this  point.  Pugme 
they  properly  consider  as  signifying  the  fist,  or  6hut  hand ;  and  from 
this,  suppose  that  the  word  here  denotes  as  much  water  as  may  be  held 
in  the  hollow  of  the  hand,  with  the  fingers  closed.  But  a  fist  will  hold 
no  water ;  and  the  hand  with  the  fingers  closed  so  as  to  hold  water,  is 
no  fist.  With  as  little  reason  can  it  be  supposed  to  signify,  as  Dr.  Camp- 
bell suggests,  that  pugme  denotes  the  manner  of  washing,  with  reference 
to  the  form  of  the  hands  when  they  wash  each  other.  In  such  circum- 
stances, neither  of  them  is  a  fist,  but  still  less  the  washing  hand.  In 
this  operation  the  hands  infold  one  another,  and  if  there  is  anything  like 
a  fist,  it  is  the  two  hands  united.  Dr.  Campbell  quotes,  with  approba- 
tion, the  remark  of  Wetstein :  "  baptizesthai  est  modus  acquae  immergere, 
niptesthai  manibus  affundere."  But  the  former  does  not  signify  to  dip 
the  hands,  except  the  regimen  is  expressed ;  and  though  the  latter  applies 
to  pouring  water  on  the  hands,  it  will  equally  apply  to  washing  out  of 
a  basin.  Parkhurst,  indeed,  translates  the  phrase ;  "  to  wash  the  hands 
ivith  the  jist,  that  is  by  rubbing  water  on  the  palm  of  one  hand,  with  the 
doubled  fist  of  the  other."  This  distinguishes  the  infolded  hand  as  the 
rubbing  hand,  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  I  believe  that,  though  both  hands 
may  be  said  to  rub  on  each  other,  yet  the  infolding  hand  is  distinguished 
as  the  rubbing  hand.  To  wash  the  hand  tcith  the  Jist,  is  not  an  expres- 
sion which  would  be  likely  to  be  chosen  to  express  the  operation  of 
washing  the  hands.  The  palm  of  one  hand  is  applied  to  the  palm  of 
the  other ;  and  when  the  palm  of  one  hand  is  applied  to  the  back  of  the 
other,  the  intention  is  to  cleanse  the  latter,  and  not  by  the  latter  to 
cleanse  the  former.  Besides,  the  inside  hand  is  seldom  closed  into  a 
fist.  I  prefer,  therefore,  the  explanation  of  Lightfoot,  which  is  both 
most  agreeable  to  the  meaning  of  pugme,  and  to  the  Jewish  traditions. 
He  understands  it  as  denoting  the  hand  as  far  as  the  fist  extended.  This 
is  agreeable  to  the  definition  of  the  word  by  Pollux:  "  If  you  shut  your 


THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  69 

hand,  the  outside  is  called  pugme :"  and  it  is  agreeable  to  the  Jewish 
traditions,  one  of  which  he  shows  enjoins  such  a  washing.  The  contrast 
then,  here,  is  between  the  washing  of  the  hands  up  to  the  wrist,  and  the 
immersion  of  the  whole  body.  Dr.  Campbell,  indeed,  remarks,  that  "  it 
ought  to  be  observed,  that  baptisontai  is  not  in  the  passive  voice,  but  the 
middle,  and  is  contrasted  with  nipsontai,  also  in  the  middle ;  so  that  by 
every  rule,  the  latter  must  be  understood  actively  as  well  as  the  former." 
But  though  I  understand  baptisontai  in  the  middle  voice,  I  do  not  ac- 
knowledge that  this  is  necessarily  required  from  a  contrast  with  nipson- 
tai. Let  the  meaning  of  this  passage  be  what  it  will,  the  active,  passive, 
and  middle  voices,  might  be  so  associated.  I  know  no  rule  that  requires 
such  a  conformity  as  Dr.  Campbell  here  demands.  It  might  be  said  of 
Christians,  they  eat  the  Lord's  supper,  and  they  are  baptized.  The 
contrast  between  nipsontai  and  baptisontai  in  the  passage  referred  to, 
does  not  require  the  same  voice.  Nipsosi,  the  active  itself,  might  have 
been  used,  and  baptisontai  in  the  passive.  I  understand  it  in  the  middle, 
not  because  nipsontai  is  middle,  but  because  in  the  baptism  referred  to, 
every  one  baptized  himself.  Had  it  been  as  in  Christian  baptism,  I 
should  understand  it  in  the  passive. 

Mr.  Evving  translates  the  passage  thus :  "  For  the  Pharisees  and  all 
the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding  the  tradition 
of  the  elders.  And  even  when  they  have  come  from  a  market,  unless  they 
baptize,  they  eat  not,"  &c.  But  the  word  oft,  as  a  translation  of  pugme, 
is  liable  to  the  objections  of  Dr.  Campbell,  which  I  need  not  here  repeat. 
Mr.  Ewing  surely  should  have  obviated  them.  Besides,  neither  Mr. 
Evving,  nor  any  person,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  produced  one  example,  in 
which  pugme  confessedly  signifies  oft.  Without  this  the  translation  has 
no  authority.  Mr.  Ewing  translates  kai,  and  even,  for  which  there  is 
no  authority.  That  particle  often  signifies  even,  but  never  and  even. 
Mr.  Ewing's  translation  makes  their  baptism  after  the  market,  inferior 
to  the  washing  before  mentioned.  But  this  certainly  reverses  the  true 
meaning.  Defilement  certainly  was  understood  to  be  increased  by  the 
market.  Mr.  Ewing  indeed  endeavours  to  give  a  turn  to  this,  but  it  is 
a  complete  failure.  "  And  in  order  to  show  how  strictly  they  hold  this 
tradition,"  he  says,  "  they  observed  it,  not  merely  on  their  more  solemn 
occasions,  but  even  when  they  had  just  come  from  places  of  public 
resort,  and  from  the  ordinary  intercourse  of  life."  But  where  did  Mr. 
Evving  find  their  more  solemn  occasions  ?  This  is  apocryphal,  and,  like 
the  Apocrypha,  it  contradicts  the  genuine  Scriptures.  The  evangelist 
declares,  that  except  they  ivash  their  hands,  they  eat  not.  This  implies, 
that  they  never  sat  down  to  table,  even  at  their  ordinary  meals,  without 
washing.  The  baptism,  after  market,  then,  must  have  been  a  greater 
or  more  extensive  purification.  Mr.  Ewing  supposes  that  the  word 
baptize  is  used  here  to  show  that  the  washing  was  not  for  cleanliness, 
but  was  a  religious  custom.  But  this  is  shown  sufficiently,  if  baptize 
were  not  used.  It  is  directly  stated,  that  this  washing  was  obedience 
to  the  tradition  of  the  elders.  I  observe  farther,  that  if  the  washing 
was  not  by  other  circumstances  known  to  be  a  religious  custom,  this 
would  not  have  been  known  by  the  word  baptizo  more  than  by  nipto. 


70  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

Besides,  baptisontai  does  not  here  explain  or  limit  nipsontai.  If  the 
latter  could  not,  with  the  words  construed  with  it,  be  known  to  designate 
a  religious  observance,  it  can  receive  no  assistance  from  the  former. 
Mr.  Ewing  understands  both  words  as  referring  to  the  same  thing, 
washing  the  hands  by  water  poured  on  them.  Why,  then,  is  nipto 
changed  for  baptizo  1  Surely  the  change  of  the  word  intimates  a  change 
of  the  meaning  in  such  circumstances.  "  They  eat  not,  except  they 
wash  their  hands.  And  after  market  they  eat  not,  except  they  baptize." 
Surely  no  person,  who  has  not  a  purpose  to  serve,  would  suppose  that 
baptize  here  meant  the  very  same  thing  with  wash  the  hands.  But  if  it 
is  insisted  that  baptize  here  is  distinguished  from  nipto  as  a  religious 
washing,  then  how  will  it  determine  that  nipto  here  refers  to  a  religious 
washing?  If  it  is  here  so  distinguished  from  nipto,  then  the  washing 
denoted  by  nipto  cannot  be  a  religious  washing.  This  would  import, 
that  the  washing  of  the  hands  first  spoken  of  by  nipto  was  not  a  religious 
washing ;  and  that  the  latter  washing  was  distinguished  from  the  former 
by  this.  The  meaning  then  would  be :  "  Except  they  wash  their  hands, 
they  eat  not ;  and  when  they  have  come  from  the  market,  they  eat  not 
until  they  have  washed  their  hands  religiously." 

But  as  respects  my  argument,  I  care  not  whether  baptisontai  here 
refers  to  the  hands  or  the  whole  body ;  it  is  perfectly  sufficient  for  me, 
if  it  here  admits  its  usual  meaning.  Let  it  be  here  observed,  and  never 
let  it  be  forgotten,  that  with  respect  to  the  meaning  of  a  word  in  any  pas- 
sage, the  proof  that  it  has  such  a  meaning  alioays  lies  upon  him  who  uses 
it  in  that  meaning  as  an  argument  or  objection ;  for  this  obvious  reason, 
that  if  it  is  not  proved,  it  is  neither  argument  nor  objection.  Now  if  I  choose 
to  bring  this  passage  as  an  argument,  or  as  additional  evidence,  I  must 
prove  its  meaning.  In  this  way  I  have  viewed  it  as  having  weight :  but 
if  I  choose  to  give  up  its  evidence,  and  stand  on  the  defence,  my  anta- 
gonist is  bound  to  prove  his  view  of  it  as  a  ground  of  his  objection,  and 
my  cause  requires  no  more  of  me  than  to  show  that  the  word  in  such  a 
situation  is  capable  of  the  meaning  for  which  I  contend.  For  it  is  evi- 
dent, that  if  it  may  have  such  a  meaning,  it  cannot  be  certain  that  it 
has  not  that  signification.  Many  a  passage  may  contain  the  disputed 
word  in  such  circumstances  as  to  afford  no  definite  evidence.  It  cannot, 
in  such  a  passage,  be  used  as  proof:  it  is  enough,  if  it  admits  the  mean- 
ing contended  for.  This  is  a  grand  law  of  controversy,  attention  to 
which  will  save  the  advocates  of  truth  much  useless  toil ;  and  keep  them 
from  attempting  to  prove,  what  it  may  not  be  possible  to  prove,  and 
what  they  are  not  required  to  prove.  It  will  also  assist  the  inquirer  to 
arrive  at  truth.  Now,  in  the  present  case,  except  Mr.  Ewing  proves  that 
baptisontai  must  here  signify  the  potiring  of  water  upon  the  hands,  or 
that  it  cannot  refer  to  the  dipping  of  the  hands  or  the  body,  he  has  done 
nothing.  I  bring  passages  without  number,  to  prove  that  the  word  must 
have  the  meaning  for  which  I  contend.  No  passage  could  be  a  valid 
objection  against  my  conclusion,  except  one  in  which  it  cannot  have  that 
signification.  These  observations  I  state  as  self-evident  truth  :  the  man 
who  does  not  perceive  their  justness,  cannot  be  worth  reasoning  with. 

But  why  should  it  be  thought  incredible,  that  the  Pharisees  immersed 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  XI 

themselves  after  market  ?  If  an  Egyptian,  on  touching  a  swine,  would 
run  to  the  river  and  plunge  in  with  his  clothes,  is  it  strange  that  the 
superstitious  Pharisees  should  immerse  themselves  after  the  pollution  of 
the  market? 

Dr.  Gale,  however,  on  the  authority  of  the  Syriac,  Arabic,  Ethiopic, 
and  Persic  versions,  is  inclined  to  understand  the  passage  as  relating  to 
the  dipping  of  the  things  bought  in  the  market.  But  as  I  decidedly 
prefer  the  other  sense,  I  will  not  avail  myself  of  this  resource.  I  abhor 
the  practice  of  catching  at  any  forced  meaning  that  serves  a  temporary 
purpose,  at  the  expense  of  setting  loose  the  meaning  of  God's  word.  I 
do  not  wish  to  force  a  favourite  mode  of  baptism  on  the  Scriptures,  but 
I  will  implicitly  submit  my  mind  to  the  mode  that  God  has  appointed. 
I  have  not  a  wish  on  the  subject,  but  to  know  the  will  of  Christ. 

What  our  version,  Mark  vii.  4,  calls  the  ivashing,  &c,  the  original 
calls,  the  baptisms  of  cups,  pots,  &,c.  It  may  then  be  asked,  does  not 
this  imply  that  this  word  signifies  washing?  But  I  answer,  as  before, 
that  though  these  things  were  dipped  for  zoashing,  yet  dipping  and 
washing  are  not  the  same  thing.  The  washing  is  not  expressed,  but 
is  a  mere  consequence  of  the  dipping.  The  passage,  then,  ought  to  be 
translated  immersions.  The  purification  of  all  the  things  specified,  except 
the  last,  was  appointed  by  the  law,  Levit.  xi.  32,  to  be  effected  by  being 
put  under  water.  But  with  respect  to  the  klinai,  or  beds,  Mr.  Ewing 
asserts  that  the  translation  dippings  would  be  manifestly  absurd.  Now 
what  is  manfestly  absurd  cannot  be  true.  If  this  assertion,  then,  is  well 
founded,  Mr.  Ewing  has  opposed  a  barrier,  which  the  boldest  cannot 
pass.  But  why  is  this  absurd  ?  Let  us  hear  his  own  words.  "  The 
articles  specified  in  ver.  4,  are  all  utensils  and  accommodations  of  the 
Jewish  mode  of  eating,  about  which  the  evangelist  was  speaking ;  from 
the  '  cups,  pots,  and  brazen  vessels'  of  the  cook  and  the  butler,  to  the 
'  beds'  of  the  triclinium,  or  dining-room,  for  the  use  of  the  family  and 
their  guests.  There  were  three  only  of  these  beds  in  one  room.  Each 
was  commonly  occupied  by  three  persons,  and  sometimes  by  five  or  even 
more.  Three  such  beds  probably  accommodated  our  Lord  and  his  dis- 
ciples at  the  last  supper.  They  must  have  been  of  such  a  size,  there- 
fore, as  to  preclude  the  idea  of  their  being  immersed,  especially  being 
frequently  immersed,  as  a  religious  ordinance."  Now  I  will  admit  this 
account  in  every  tittle,  yet  still  contend  that  there  is  nothing  like  an 
absurdity  in  the  supposition  that  the  couches  were  immersed.  The  thing 
is  quite  possible,  and  who  will  say  that  the  superstitious  Pharisees  might 
not  practise  it?  It  would  indeed  be  a  very  inconvenient  thing,  but 
what  obstacles  will  not  superstition  overcome?  It  would  be  a  foolish 
thing;  but  who  would  expect  anything  but  folly  in  will-worship?  Such 
religious  practice  was  indeed  absurd,  but  it  is  an  abuse  of  language  to 
assert  that  it  is  an  absxirdity  to  say  that  the  Pharisees  immersed  their 
couches.  Let  Mr.  Ewing  beware  of  using  such  language.  If  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  asserted  that  the  Pharisees  baptized  their  couches,  and  if  this 
word  signifies  to  immerse,  Mr.  Ewing  has  asserted  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
has  asserted  an  absurdity.  This  is  no  light  matter.  It  is  an  awful 
charge  on  the  Spirit  of  inspiration. 


72  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

Dr.  Wardlaw  is  equally  rash  on  this  point.  He  supposes  that  it  is 
incredible  that  they  immersed  their  beds.  How  is  it  incredible  1  Is  the 
thing  impossible  ?  If  not,  its  credibility  depends  on  the  testimony.  But 
whether  or  not  the  Holy  Spirit  gives  the  testimony,  depends  on  the 
meaning  of  the  word.  If  from  other  passages  we  learn  that  it  has  this 
meaning,  this  passage  cannot  teach  the  contrary,  if  the  thing  is  possible. 
Upon  the  principle  of  interpretation  here  recognised  by  Mr.  Ewing  and 
Dr.  Wardlaw,  we  might  reject  every  thing  in  history  not  suited  to  our 
own  conceptions ;  or  explain  them  away  by  paring  down  the  meaning  of 
words.  This  is  the  very  principle  of  the  Neological  explanation  of  the 
Scripture  miracles.  The  things  are  thought  absurd  in  the  obvious 
meaning  of  the  words ;  and  therefore  the  language  must  submit  to  accept 
a  meaning  suitable  to  the  conceptions  of  the  critics.  Mr.  Robinson 
thinks  the  common  view  of  the  exploit  of  Samson  in  killing  such  a 
multitude  with  the  jaw-bone  of  an  ass  incredible,  and  he  takes  away  the 
incredibility  of  the  scriptural  account,  by  explaining  it  of  the  tooth  of  a 
rock  which  Samson  pulled  down  on  his  enemies.  Dr.  Wardlaw  says, 
with  respect  to  the  immersion  of  beds,  "  he  who  can  receive  it,  let  him 
receive  it."  I  say,  he  who  dares  to  reject  it,  rejects  the  testimony  of  God. 
This  is  a  most  improper  way  to  speak  on  the  subject.  If  immersion  is 
the  meaning  of  the  word,  it  is  not  optional  to  receive  or  reject  it.  Whe- 
ther or  not  this  is  its  meaning,  must  be  learned  from  its  history,  not 
from  the  abstract  probability  or  improbability  of  the  immersion  of  beds. 
If  the  history  of  the  word  declares  its  meaning  to  be  immersion,  the  mere 
difficulty  of  immersing  beds,  in  conformity  to  a  religious  tradition,  can- 
not imply  that  it  has  another  meaning  here.  The  principle,  then,  of  this 
objection,  and  the  language  in  which  these  writers  state  it,  cannot  be 
too  strongly  reprobated.  If  adopted  on  other  questions  respecting  the 
will  of  God,  it  tends  to  set  us  loose  from  the  authority  of  his  word. 

I  will  here  reduce  my  observations  on  this  point  to  the  form  of  a  canon. 
When  a  thing  is  proved  by  sufficient  evidence,  no  objection 
from  difficulties  can  be  admitted  as  decisive,  except  they  in- 
VOLVE an  impossibility.  This  is  self-evident,  for  otherwise  nothing 
could  ever  be  proved.  If  every  man's  view  of  abstract  probability  were 
allowed  to  outweigh  evidence,  no  truth  would  stand  the  test.  The  exist- 
ence of  God  could  not  be  proved.  The  Scriptures  themselves  could  not 
abide  such  a  trial.  If  my  canon  is  not  self-evident,  let  no  man  receive 
it ;  but  if  it  is  just,  it  overturns  not  only  this  objection,  but  almost  all 
the  objections  that  have  been  alleged  against  immersion  in  baptism. 
Besides,  there  is  hardly  any  point  of  theological  controversy  in  which  it 
may  not  be  useful.  Many  who  are  willing  to  admit  it  on  the  subject  of 
baptism,  may  act  contrary  to  it  on  other  subjects.  Indeed,  there  are 
few  who  do  not  in  things  of  small  moment  overlook  this  principle. 

In  tracing  the  history  of  Jesus,  we  shall  see  how  much  of  the  oppo- 
sition to  his  claims  was  founded  on  the  principle  which  my  canon 
reprobates.  When  he  said  that  he  was  the  bread  that  came  down  from 
heaven,  the  Jews  murmured,  and  replied,  "  Is  not  this  Jesus,  the  son  of 
Joseph,  whose  father  and  mother  we  know  ?  How  is  it  then  that  he 
saith,  I  came  down  from  heaven?"   John  vi.  42.     Here  was  a  difficulty 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  73 

that  they  thought  insuperable.  "  We  are  sure  he  was  born  among  us 
— he  could  not  therefore  have  come  from  heaven."  But  there  was  a 
solution  to  this  difficulty,  had  their  prejudices  permitted  them  to  find  it. 
It  was  possible,  that  though  born  on  earth,  as  a  man,  he  might  come 
from  heaven,  as  he  was  God.  But  they  were  glad  to  catch  at  the  appa- 
rent inconsistency ;  and  their  prejudices  would  not  allow  them  to  attempt 
to  vindicate  themselves.  This  in  fact  is  the  very  substance  of  one  com- 
mon objection  to  the  deity  of  Christ.  The  Arians  still  collect  all  the 
passages  that  assert  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  and  take  it  for  granted 
that  this  is  a  proof  that  he  is  not  God.  Let  our  brethren  take  care  that 
it  is  not  on  the  same  principle  they  allege  this  objection  to  immersion  in 
baptism.  Were  there  no  wish  to  find  evidence  on  one  side  only,  would 
it  be  supposed  that  it  is  absurd  or  incredible  that  the  superstitious  Phari- 
sees immersed  even  their  couches  1 — Another  striking  instance  of  object- 
ing on  this  principle  we  have,  John  vii.  41,  42.  "  Shall  Christ  come 
out  of  Galilee?  Hath  not  the  Scripture  said,  that  Christ  cometh  of  the 
seed  of  David,  and  out  of  the  town  of  Bethlehem,  where  David  was  V 
This  would  appear  to  them  a  noose  from  which  he  could  not  extricate 
himself — a  difficulty  that  he  could  not  solve.  The  Scriptures  assert, 
that  the  Christ  will  come  out  of  Bethlehem-,  but  this  man  has  come  out  of 
Galilee.  Had  they  been  as  willing  to  see  evidence  in  his  favour,  as  evi- 
dence against  him,  they  might  have  perceived  that  the  agreement  of 
these  apparent  contradictions  was  not  impossible.  The  knowledge  of 
his  real  history  would  have  given  the  solution.  But  it  was  not  a  solution 
they  wanted.  In  reading  the  history  of  Jesus  also,  it  is  not  uninstruc- 
tive  to  remark,  that  many  things  which  appear  to  his  enemies  decisive 
evidence  against  him,  had  no  weight  at  all  with  his  friends.  This  dis- 
crepancy shows  how  much  our  sentiments  are  under  the  influence  of  our 
feelings,  and  consequently  the  guilt  of  unbelief,  with  respect  to  any  part 
of  the  Divine  counsel  which  we  reject.  Though  we  have  no  right  to 
judge  one  another,  we  have  a  right,  when  God  has  given  a  revelation, 
to  ascribe  all  ignorance  of  it  to  sin.  I  make  this  observation  not  merely 
with  respect  to  the  point  now  in  debate,  or  to  criminate  my  opponents. 
The  observation  applies  to  every  error ;  and  as  no  man  has  attained  in 
every  thing  to  truth,  it  applies  to  us  all.  I  make  the  observation  to  incite 
my  brethren  on  both  sides  of  this  subject,  to  search  without  prejudice — 
to  inquire  under  the  influence  of  an  impression  of  great  accountableness. 
I  will  state  farther,  that  in  proving  that  a  thing  is  not  impossible, 

THERE  IS  NO  OBLIGATION  TO  PROVE  THAT  ANY  OF  THE  POSSIBLE  WAYS  OF 
SOLUTION  DID  ACTUALLY  EXIST.       TlIE  BARE  POSSIBILITY  OF  EXISTENCE 

is  enough.  This  also  is  self-evident,  and  may  be  stated  as  a  canon.  Yet 
from  inattention  to  this,  the  opponents  of  immersion  are  constantly  call- 
ing on  us  to  prove,  that  there  were,  in  such  and  such  places,  things 
necessary  for  dipping.  Mr.  Ewing  gauges  the  reservoirs  and  wells  of 
Jerusalem,  to  show  their  insufficiency  for  immersion.  He  may  then  call 
on  me  to  find  a  place  sufficient  to  immerse  a  couch.  But  I  will  go  on 
no  such  errand.  If  I  have  proved  the  meaning  of  the  word,  I  will  believe 
the  Spirit  of  God,  who  tells  me  that  the  Pharisees  baptized  their  beds,  and 
leave  the  superstition  and  industry  of  the  devotees  to  find  or  make  such 

10 


74  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

a  place.  Let  the  demand  which  our  opponents  in  this  instance  make 
on  us,  be  conceded  to  the  infidel,  and  the  Bible  must  be  given  up.  In 
replying  to  difficulties  started  by  the  deist,  the  defender  of  Christianity 
thinks  he  has  amply  done  his  duty,  when  he  shows  that  the  solution  is 
possible,  without  proving  that  the  possible  way  of  solution  did  actually 
exist.  Indeed,  many  of  the  defenders  of  Christianity  undertake  too 
much,  and  lay  too  much  stress  on  actual  proof,  with  respect  to  the  way 
in  which  difficulties  may  be  removed.  When  such  proof  can  be  got,  it 
is  always  right  to  produce  it,  more  clearly  to  confound  the  infidel.  But 
it  is  extremely  injudicious  to  lay  such  a  stress  on  these  solutions,  as  if 
they  were  actually  necessary.  It  ought  always  to  be  strongly  stated, 
that  such  proof  is  more  than  the  defence  of  truth  requires.  When 
writers  think  themselves  remarkably  successful  in  this  way,  they  are  not 
disinclined  to  magnify  the  importance  of  their  discoveries,  and  are 
willing  to  rest  a  part  of  the  evidence  on  their  own  success.  This  dis- 
covers more  vanity  than  judgment,  and  more  desire  for  the  glory  of 
discovery,  than  for  the  interests  of  the  truths  defended.  When  this 
happens,  it  is  not  strange  that  infidels  are  emboldened  to  make  the  un- 
reasonable demand,  which  their  opponents  have  voluntarily  rendered 
themselves  liable  to  answer.  If  I  could  prove  that  there  was  at  Jeru- 
salem a  pond  that  could  immerse  the  High  Church  of  Glasgow,  I  would 
certainly  bring  forward  my  proof;  but  I  would  as  certainly  disclaim  the 
necessity.  To  give  an  example.  In  opposition  to  Dr.  Campbell's 
opinion,  that  Mark  vii.  4,  refers  to  the  dipping  of  the  hands,  Mr.  Ewing, 
as  his  proof,  alleges,  that  "  as  far  as  he  has  observed,  there  is  only  one 
way  of  washing  either  the  hands  or  the  feet  in  Scripture,  and  that  is, 
by  pouring  water  upon  them,  and  rubbing  them  as  the  water  flows." 
Now,  were  I  of  Dr.  Campbell's  opinion  on  this  passage,  I  would  grant 
Mr.  Ewing  all  this,  yet  abide  by  my  position.  It  is  very  possible  that 
all  the  other  instances  of  washing  the  hands  that  are  mentioned  in  Scrip- 
ture may  be  such,  yet  a  different  way  have  been  in  existence  on  some 
occasions.  And  if  the  expression  were  baptisosi  tas  clieiras,  this  I  would 
suppose  not  only  possible,  but  undoubtedly  true.  No  number  of  exam- 
ples of  one  mode  of  washing  the  hands  can  prove  that  no  other  mode 
was  ever  practised.  It  is  of  vast  importance  in  every  controversy,  to 
know  what  we  are  obliged  to  prove,  and  what  is  not  necessary  to  our 
argument.  From  inattention  to  this,  Mr.  Ewing  thinks  he  has  defeated 
Dr.  Campbell,  when  he  has  never  touched  him.  His  weapons  fall  quite 
on  this  side  of  the  mark.  Now,  on  this  last  point  I  differ  from  Dr. 
Campbell.  I  do  not  think  that  baptisontai  refers  to  the  dipping  of  the 
hands.  Yet  I  would  not  use  Mr.  Ewing's  arguments  to  disprove  this. 
Indeed,  were  Dr.  Campbell  alive,  he  would  not  be  so  easily  defeated. 
Mr.  Ewing  discredits  his  authority  on  the  subject  of  immersion  as  the 
scriptural  mode  of  baptism,  by  representing  him  as  resting  his  opinion 
on  Tertullian  among  the  ancients,  and  Wetstein  among  the  moderns. 
Nothing  can  be  more  unfair.  He  merely  refers  to  Tertullian,  to  show 
the  sense  in  which  the  word  baptizo  was  understood  by  the  Latin  fathers, 
and  quotes  the  opinion  of  Wetstein,  with  a  general  approbation  of  him 
as  a  critic,  certainly  beyond  his  deserts,  and  with  respect  to  a  criticism 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  75 

which  I  believe  to  be  false.  But  Dr.  Campbell  was  not  a  man  to  found 
his  views  on  such  authority.  When  he  says,  "I  have  heard  a  disputant 
of  this  stamp,  in  defiance  of  etymology  and  use,  maintain  that  the  word 
rendered  in  the  New  Testament  baptize,  means  more  properly  to  sprinkle 
than  to  plunge ;  and  in  defiance  of  all  antiquity,  that  the  former  method 
was  the  earliest,  and  for  many  centuries  the  most  general  practice  in 
baptizing,"  does  he  not  found  it  on  his  own  knowledge  of  etymology  and 
use — on  his  own  knowledge  of  antiquity  1  Will  Mr.  Ewing  venture  to 
say  that  Dr.  Campbell  was  not  well  acquainted  with  the  etymology  and 
use  of  the  word  in  question  1  From  what  modern  must  he  receive  in- 
struction with  respect  to  the  antiquities  of  church  history  ?  It  may  be 
true,  indeed,  that  Dr.  Campbell  has  not  done  all  for  this  subject  that  he 
might  have  done.  But  did  he  fail  in  what  he  attempted  ?  Who  would 
expect  that  in  his  situation  he  could  have  done  more  ?  Nor  is  his  can- 
dour in  confessing  a  mode  of  baptism  to  be  primitive,  which  he  did  not 
adopt,  to  be  ascribed  to  a  vanity  of  patronising  what  he  did  not  practise. 
Like  many  others,  he  may  have  thought  that  the  mode  was  not  essential 
to  the  ordinance.  And  I  have  no  hesitation  in  affirming,  that  such  an 
opinion  is  far  less  injurious  to  the  Scriptures,  than  the  attempt  of  those 
who  will  force  their  favourite  mode  out  of  the  Scriptures,  while  even 
on  the  rack  they  will  not  make  the  confession.  Such  persons  are  obliged 
to  give  a  false  turn  to  a  great  part  of  Scripture,  totally  unconcerned  in 
the  controversy.  Nay,  they  are  obliged  to  do  violence  even  to  the  classics. 
Popery  itself  is  not  obliged,  on  this  point,  to  make  such  havoc  of  the 
word  of  God.  It  has  a  happy  power  of  changing  Scripture  ordinances,  and 
therefore,  on  this  point,  can  confess  the  truth  without  injury  to  its  system. 
I  am  led  to  the  defence  of  Dr.  Campbell,  not  from  a  wish  to  have  the 
authority  of  his  name  on  my  side  on  this  question.  In  that  point  of 
view,  I  do  not  need  him.  I  consider  myself  as  having  produced  such  a 
body  of  evidence  on  this  subject,  that  I  am  entitled  to  disregard  the 
mere  authority  of  names.  I  have  appealed  to  a  tribunal  higher  than 
the  authority  of  all  critics — to  use  itself.  I  do  not  hold  up  Dr.  Camp- 
bell as  universally  successful  in  his  criticisms.  Many  of  them  I  am 
convinced  are  wrong ;  and  those  who  have  in  all  things  made  our  ver- 
sion of  the  Gospels  conform  to  his,  have  done  no  service  to  the  cause  of 
Christ.  His  judgment  is  always  to  be  respected,  but  often  to  be  rejected. 
On  some  points  of  Christian  doctrine,  he  was  evidently  but  partially 
enlightened,  and  against  some  he  has  made  his  translation  and  criticisms 
to  bear.  But  as  a  man  of  integrity — as  a  candid  adversary — as  a 
philosophic  critic,  he  has  few  equals.  With  respect  to  the  philosophy 
of  language,  he  is  immeasurably  before  all  our  Scripture  critics.  I  bow 
to  the  authority  of  no  man  in  the  things  of  God,  yet  I  cannot  but 
reverence  Dr.  Campbell.  I  respect  him  almost  as  much  when  I  differ 
from  him,  as  when  we  are  agreed.  He  looks  into  language  with  the  eye 
of  a  philosopher,  and  in  controversy  manifests  a  candour  unknown  to 
most  theologians.  Mr.  Ewing's  censure  of  Dr.  Campbell  involves  the 
great  body  of  learned  men :  it  is  too  notorious  to  need  proof,  that  the 
most  learned  men  in  Europe,  while  they  practised  sprinkling  or  pouring, 
have  confessed  immersion  to  be  the  primitive  mode. 


76  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

But  with  respect  to  Mark  vii.  4,  though  it  were  proved  that  the 
couches  could  not  be  immersed,  I  would  not  yield  an  inch  of  the  ground 
I  have  occupied.  There  is  no  absolute  necessity  to  suppose  that  the 
klinai,  or  beds,  were  the  couches  at  table.  The  word,  indeed,  both  in 
Scripture  and  in  Greek  writers,  has  this  signification ;  but  in  both  it 
also  signifies  the  beds  on  which  they  slept.  Now,  if  it  were  such  beds 
that  the  Pharisees  baptized,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  their  immersion. 
They  were  such  that  a  man  could  take  up  from  the  street,  and  carry  to 
his  house,  Matt.  ix.  6. 

Besides,  as  it  is  not  said  how  often  they  purified  in  this  manner,  we 
are  at  liberty  to  suppose  that  it  was  only  for  particular  kinds  of  unclean- 
ness,  and  on  occasions  that  did  not  often  occur.  Mr.  Ewing,  indeed, 
says,  "  there  was,  no  doubt,  a  complete  observance  of  the  '  baptisms'  of 
cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and  beds,  at  the  feast  of  the  marriage 
in  Cana  in  Galilee."  There  is  no  doubt  that  at  that  feast  there  was  a 
purification  of  all  things,  according  to  the  custom  of  a  wedding :  but 
where  did  Mr.  Ewing  learn  that  it  was  during  the  feast  that  the  couches 
were  purified?  The  water-pots  were,  no  doubt,  for  the  purification 
usual  at  a  wedding :  but  this  does  not  indicate  all  Jewish  purifications. 
The  hands  and  the  feet  of  the  guests  were  washed,  and  very  likely  also, 
the  vessels  used  at  the  feast :  but  that  the  couches  were  purified  is  not 
said,  and  is  not  likely.  It  is  not  necessary,  even,  that  all  things  puri- 
fied at  a  feast,  should  have  been  purified  out  of  these  water-pots.  It  is 
enough  that  they  were  suitable  for  the  purification  of  some  things.  If 
there  was  anything  to  be  purified  which  could  not  be  purified  in  them, 
it  may  have  been  purified  elsewhere.  It  is  not  said  that  all  things  were 
purified  in  these  water-pots.  Besides,  it  is  not  said  that  these  water- 
pots  were  but  once  filled  during  the  wedding  feast.  We  may  therefore 
fill  them  as  often  as  we  find  necessary.  I  do  not,  therefore,  find  it  at  all 
necessary,  with  Mr.  Ewing,  to  gauge  these  water-pots,  in  order  to  settle 
this  question. 

Mr.  Bruce  informs  us,  that  in  Abyssinia,  the  sect  called  Kemmont 
"  wash  themselves  from  head  to  foot,  after  coming  from  the  market,  or 
any  public  place,  where  they  may  have  touched  any  one  of  a  different 
sect  from  their  own,  esteeming  all  such  unclean."  Is  it  strange,  then, 
to  find  the  Pharisees,  the  superstitious  Pharisees,  immersing  their 
couches  for  purification,  or  themselves  after  market?  I  may  add,  that 
the  couches  might  have  been  so  constructed,  that  they  might  be  con- 
veniently taken  to  pieces,  for  the  purpose  of  purification.  This  I  say, 
only  for  the  sake  of  those  who  will  not  believe  God  without  a  voucher. 
For  myself,  it  is  perfectly  sufficient  that  the  Holy  Spirit  testifies  that  the 
Pharisees  baptized  themselves  before  eating,  after  market ;  and  that  they 
baptized  their  couches.  It  is  an  axiom  in  science,  that  no  difficulty 
can  avail  against  demonstration ;  and  with  me  it  is  an  axiom,  that  no 
difficulty  entitles  us  to  give  the  lie  to  the  Spirit  of  inspiration. 

In  Heb.  ix.  10,  the  word  baptismois  is  translated  tcashi?igs.  Is  not 
this  proof  that  the  word  signifies  to  wash?  The  reply  to  this  has 
already  been  given,  in  showing  the  difference  between  dip  and  wash. 
The  translation   ought  to  be   "  different  immersions,"  not  "  different 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  77 

washings."  Dipping  is  the  thing  expressed,  washing  is  a  consequence. 
But  Dr.  Wardlaw  observes,  "  that  amongst  the  '  divers  washings'  of  the 
old  dispensation,  referred  to  Heb.  ix.  10,  must  surely  be  included  all  the 
various  modes  of  Jewish  purification ;  and  consequently  the  rantismata, 
or  sprinklings,  which  were  the  most  numerous,"  p.  172.  But  how  is 
this  certain  1  Why  should  it  be  supposed  that  the  baptisms  under  the 
law  contained  all  the  purifications  required  by  the  law  1  This  is  not 
said  here,  nor  anywhere  else  in  the  Scriptures.  There  is  no  necessity 
to  suppose  that  every  thing  enjoined  in  the  law  must  be  included  in  the 
things  here  mentioned.  The  apostle  designs  to  illustrate  merely  by 
specification,  not  to  give  a  logical  abstract.  But  even  were  the  sprink- 
lings to  be  included  in  one  or  other  of  the  things  mentioned,  it  may  be 
in  the  carnal  ordinances.  It  is  a  very  convenient  way  of  proving  any- 
thing, to  take  it  for  granted.  Dr.  Wardlaw  here  takes  for  granted  the 
thing  to  be  proved.  The  phrase  "  divers  baptisms,"  must  indicate  the 
sprinklings;  therefore  baptism  must  signify  sprinkling,  as  one  of  its 
meanings.  But  we  deny  that  the  "  divers  baptisms"  include  the  sprink- 
lings. The  phrase  alludes  to  the  immersion  of  the  different  things  that 
by  the  law  were  to  be  immersed.  The  greatest  part  of  false  reasoning 
depends  on  false  first  principles.  Dr.  Wardlaw's  first  principle  here,  is 
like  that  of  Nathaniel  with  respect  to  Christ :  "  Can  any  good  thing 
come  out  of  Nazareth?"  If  it  is  granted  that  no  good  thing  could 
come  out  of  Nazareth,  the  proof  was  undoubted,  that  Jesus  was  not  the 
Christ.  To  refute  such  reasoning,  we  have  only  to  demand  the  proof 
of  the  premises. 

Judith  xii.  7,  is  another  passage  which  may  be  alleged  to  prove  that 
baptizo  sometimes  signifies  to  wash ;  but  from  what  has  frequently  been 
observed  on  the  like  use  of  the  word,  with  how  little  reason,  will  appear 
in  a  moment :  "  And  she  went  out  in  the  night,  and  baptized  herself  in 
the  camp  at  a  fountain."  This  ought  here  to  have  been  translated  she 
dipped  herself.  Washing  was  the  consequence  of  dipping  in  pure  water. 
Homer  speaks  of  stars  washed  in  the  sea,  (II.  E.  6 ;)  and  Virgil,  express- 
ing the  same  thing,  speaks  of  the  constellation  of  the  bear,  as  fearing  to 
be  dipped  in  the  ocean,  (Georg.  i.,  245.)  Now,  though  exactly  the  same 
thing  is  referred  to,  the  expressions  are  not  exactly  equivalent.  By  the 
word  washing,  Homer  fixes  our  attention,  not  on  the  mere  dipping,  but 
on  the  effect  of  it, — the  washing  of  the  stars  by  being  dipped.  Virgil 
fixes  our  attention,  not  on  the  washing  of  the  stars,  but  on  their  dipping, 
with  reference  to  the  danger  or  disagreeableness  of  the  operation.  We 
may  say  either  Jill  the  pitcher,  or  dip  the  pitcher ;  but  this  does  not 
imply  that  dip  signifies  to  fill.  In  like  manner,  the  word  baptizo  is  used 
when  persons  sink  in  water,  and  perish.  Whiston,  in  his  version  of 
Josephus,  sometimes  translates  it  drown.  But  does  this  imply  that 
baptizo  signifies  to  drown,  or  to  perish  1  The  perishing,  or  the  drown- 
ing, is  the  consequence  of  dipping  in  certain  circumstances.  The  per- 
son, then,  who  so  perishes,  may  be  said  to  be  drowned.  But  this  is  not 
a  translation  ;  it  is  a  commentary.  I  have  already  pointed  out  the  fallacy 
of  that  position,  which  is  a  first  principle  with  most  critics  ;  namely,  the 
supposition,  that  words  are  equivalent,  which  in  any  circumstances  are 


78  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

interchangeable.  It  is  an  error  plausible,  but  mischievous.  Yet,  on  no 
better  foundation  does  Dr.  Wall,  and  innumerable  others  after  him, 
argue  that  baptizo  must  signify  to  wash  in  general.  The  verb  louo  is 
applied  to  baptism  ;  therefore  baptizo,  it  is  thought,  must  signify  to  wash, 
as  well  as  louo. 

Mr.  Evving,  indeed,  says,  "  In  this  case,  the  washing  could  not  have 
been  by  immersion,  being  done  at  a  spring  or  fountain  of  water."  But 
what  sort  of  impossibility  is  this  ?  VVas  it  utterly  impossible  to  have  a 
conveniency  for  bathing  near  a  fountain  ?  On  the  contrary,  is  it  not 
very  probable  that  stone  troughs,  or  other  vessels,  were  usually  provided 
at  fountains  for  bathing  and  washing  clothes  ?  We  find  such  a  provision 
at  two  fountains  near  Troy,  mentioned  by  Homer,  lib.  xxii.  153 : 

"  Two  fountains,  tepid  one,  from  which  a  smoke 
Issues  voluminous,  as  from  a  fire  ; 
The  other,  ev'n  in  summer's  heats,  like  hail 
For  cold,  or  snow,  or  crystal  stream  frost-bound. 
Beside  them  may  be  seen  the  broad  canals 
Of  marble  scooped,  in  which  the  wives  of  Troy, 
And  all  her  daughters  fair,  were  wont  to  lave 
Their  costly  raiment,  while  the  land  had  rest,"  &c. 

Cowper. 

We  find  also  a  like  provision  at  a  river  in  Phaeacia,  in  the  Odyssey, 
Jib.  vi.  86 : 

"At  the  delightful  rivulet  arrived, 
Where  those  perennial  cisterns  were  prepared, 
With  purest  crystal  of  the  fountain  fed 
Profuse,"  &c.  Cowper. 

Why,  then,  may  not  such  a  provision  have  been  at  the  fountain 
referred  to,  especially  as  it  was  in  a  camp?  Is  it  likely  that  in  such  a 
place  there  would  be  no  convenience  for  bathing  ?  Indeed,  nothing  is 
more  common  in  our  own  country,  than  where  there  is  no  river,  to  have 
a  vessel,  or  contrivance  of  some  kind,  for  bathing,  near  a  well.  But  I 
produce  this  evidence  as  a  mere  work  of  supererogation.  Nothing  more 
can  be  required  of  me  than  to  show  that  the  thing  is  not  impossible. 
Even  were  it  certain,  that  at  this  fountain  there  was  no  such  provision, 
might  not  some  person  have  supplied  her  with  a  vessel?  To  argue  as 
Mr.  Ewing  does  here,  is  to  reason  without  first  principles.  He  takes  it 
for  granted,  that  a  thing  is  impossible,  which  is  so  far  from  being  impos- 
sible, that  it  is  not  improbable.  Were  this  a  lawful  mode  of  reasoning, 
it  would  be  easy  to  disprove  every  thing. 

Section  XII. — I  shall  now  try  what  evidence  can  be  found  to  deter- 
mine the  literal  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo,  from  its  figurative  appli- 
cations. When  a  word  is  used  figuratively,  the  figure  is  founded  on  the 
literal  meaning ;  and,  therefore,  by  examining  the  figure,  we  may  disco- 
ver additional  evidence  with  respect  to  the  literal  meaning.  And  here 
I  would  first  observe,  that  some  instances  of  figurative  use  may  not  be 
decisive,  as  well  as  some  instances  of  literal  use.  It  is  enough  that 
every  instance  of  both  literal  and  figurative  use  will  explain  fairly  on 


THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  79 

the  supposition  of  the  meaning  for  which  we  contend,  when  other  in- 
stances irresistibly  and  confessedly  imply  it.  Our  opponents  contend, 
that  in  some  of  its  figurative  occurrences  the  allusion  is  to  pouring. 
"  In  this  sense  of  pouring  upon,  and  pouring  into,"  says  Mr.  Ewing, 
"  till  mind  and  body  are  overwhelmed,  impregnated,  intoxicated,  and  the 
circumstances  are  oppressive,  or  even  destructive,  the  word  is  very 
frequently  used  in  profane  writers."  In  opposition  to  this,  I  assert  that 
not  one  of  all  Mr.  Ewing's  examples  necessarily  refers  to  pouring  upon, 
or  pouring  into.  In  many  of  them,  the  translation  may  be  overwhelm ; 
but  in  this  term,  the  reference  is  not  to  water  poured  upon,  or  poured 
into,  but  to  water  coming  over  in  a  current,  like  the  tide  overwhelming 
the  beach.  This  is  strictly  and  characteristically  expressed  by  kluzo. 
To  this,  some  of  the  figurative  occurrences  of  baptizo  have  a  reference ; 
and  here  there  is  a  real  immersion.  The  overiohelming  water  baptizes 
or  sinks  the  person  or  thing  baptized.  Some  of  the  instances  in  which 
the  word  is  translated  overwhelm,  may  well  enough  be  so  rendered,  as  a 
free  translation ;  yet  as  there  is  no  allusion  to  water  coming  over,  but  to 
sinking  in  water,  the  translation  is  not  literal.  I  observe  again,  that 
whether  the  water  is  supposed  to  come  over  the  object,  or  the  object  is 
supposed  to  sink  in  the  water,  there  is  not  a  single  figurative  occurrence 
of  the  word,  which  does  not  imply  that  the  object  was  completely  covered 
with  the  water.  Now,  this  kind  of  baptism  would  be  little  relief  to  Mr. 
Ewing.  The  man  who  is  covered  by  the  tide,  while  he  lies  on  the  shore, 
by  the  edge  of  the  sea,  is  overwhelmed  ;  and  he  is  as  completely  covered, 
as  if  he  had  gone  into  the  sea,  and  dipped  himself.  Even  were  Mr. 
Ewing  to  pour  or  sprinkle  the  water  in  baptism,  till  the  person  baptized 
should  be  entirely  drenched,  it  would  afford  no  relief  from  immersion. 
Not  one,  then,  of  the  examples  of  figurative  use  adduced  by  Mr.  Ewing, 
countenances  his  own  favourite  mode  of  baptism. 

Let  us  now  take  a  look  at  Mr.  Ewing's  examples,  in  which  the  word 
is  used  figuratively  :  "  To  have  been  drenched  with  wine."  I  have  no 
objection  to  the  translation  drench,  as  it  may  imply  that  the  object  is 
steeped  or  dipped,  so  as  to  be  soaked  in  the  fluid.  But  as  a  thing  may 
be  drenched  by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  the  translation  is  not  definitely 
exact.     Literally,  it  is  immersed  in  wine. 

In  order  to  determine  whether  pouring  or  immersing  is  the  ground 
of  the  figure,  let  us  examine  what  is  the  point  of  likeness.  It  must  be 
a  bad  figure,  if  the  point  of  resemblance  in  the  objects  is  not  obvious. 
Now,  let  it  be  observed,  that  there  is  no  likeness  between  the  action  of 
drinking,  and  either  the  pouring  of  fluids,  or  immersion  in  them.  Were 
this  the  point  of  resemblance,  the  drinking  of  one  small  glass  might  be 
designated  a  baptism,  as  well  as  the  drinking  of  a  cask ;  for  the  mode  is 
as  perfect  on  the  lowest  point  in  the  scale,  as  on  the  highest.  Every  act 
of  drinking,  whether  wine  or  water,  would  be  a  baptism.  Mr.  Ewing, 
indeed,  supposes  that  there  is  an  excessive  pouring,  but  as  this  cannot  be 
included  in  mere  mode,  it  cannot  be  included  in  the  word  that  designates 
this,  but  must  be  expressed  by  some  additional  word.  Besides,  if  the 
word  baptizo  signifies  excessive  pouring,  it  must  do  so  in  baptism,  which 
condemns  Mr.  Ewing's  popping  a  little  water  on  the  face.     If  it  is 


80  THE   MODE    OP    BAPTISM. 

supposed  that  there  is  poiiring  in  the  drinking  of  a  drunkard,  which  is 
not  in  drinking  moderately,  and  that  the  design  of  this  application  of  the 
word  baptizo  is  to  designate  this ;  I  reply,  that  the  mode  of  drinking  a 
small  glass  is  as  much  pouring,  as  the  drinking  of  the  cup  of  Hercules. 
Indeed,  there  may  be  something  of  pouring  in  the  action  of  putting  a 
small  quantity  of  liquid  into  the  mouth,  which  is  not  in  drinking  a  large 
goblet.  But  if  the  word  baptizo,  in  expressing  drunkenness,  refers  to 
the  mode  of  drinking,  there  is  then  no  figure  at  all  in  the  expression,  for 
between  pouring  and  pouring  there  is  no  resemblance.  This  is  identity. 
Indeed,  Mr.  Ewing  does  not  treat  these  expressions  as  figurative.  He 
speaks  as  if  he  considered  that  the  word  baptizo  was  taken  in  them 
literally.  He  supposes  that  there  is  a  "pouring  upon  or  a  pouring  into, 
till  mind  and  body  are  overwhelmed,"  &c.  The  wine  then  is  poured 
into  the  person  till  he  is  intoxicated.  This  might  be  true,  if  the  wine 
was  put  into  him  as  men  administer  a  drench  to  a  horse.  But  the 
drunkard  administers  the  wine  to  himself.  What  is  the  sense  of  the 
expression  he  is  poured  with  wine,  which  on  this  supposition  is  the  literal 
meaning  ? 

But  when  baptizo  is  applied  to  drunkenness,  it  is  taken  figuratively ; 
and  the  point  of  resemblance  is  between  a  man  completely  under  the 
influence  of  wine,  and  an  object  completely  subjected  to  a  liquid  in 
which  it  is  wholly  immersed.  This  is  not  only  obvious  from  the  figure 
itself,  but  from  the  circumstances  with  which  the  figure  is  sometimes 
conjoined.  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  employing  the  same  figure,  says, 
baptized  into  sleep,  through  drunkenness.  Now,  baptized  into  sleep,  is 
exactly  our  figure  buried  in  sleep,  which  is  an  immersion ;  and  burial 
is  the  thing  represented  by  Christian  baptism.  Is  there  any  likeness 
between  pouring  and  sleeping  ?  Is  not  the  likeness  between  complete 
subjection  to  the  influence  of  sleep,  and  the  complete  subjection  of  an 
object  to  the  influence  of  a  liquid  when  immersed  in  it  ?  The  same 
father  applies  the  word  to  those  who  give  themselves  up  to  fornication. 
This  is  just  our  own  figure  when  we  speak  of  plunging  headlong  into 
debauchery. 

This  view  is  fully  confirmed  by  the  same  figure  in  other  languages. 
All  figures  that  are  founded  on  nature,  and  obvious  to  the  observation 
of  all  nations,  will  be  in  all  languages  the  same.  Figurative  language 
is  a  universal  language.  Now,  when  we  examine  this  figure  in  the  Latin 
language,  our  view  of  it  is  put  beyond  all  doubt.  Virgil  says  of  the 
Greeks  taking  Troy, 

"  Invadunt  urbem  somno  vinoque  sepultam." 
They  invade  the  city  buried  in  sleep  and  wine. 

Here  burial  is  applied  both  to  sleep  and  wine.  Baptized,  therefore, 
into  sleep  and  wine,  as  used  in  the  Greek  language,  must  be  the  same 
as  buried  in  sleep  and  wine  in  the  Latin.  Surely  if  the  expression  in 
the  Greek  needed  a  commentary,  this  must  be  an  authoritative  one. 
There  can  be  no  pretence  for  taking  pouring  out  of  burial.  This  must 
be  immersion. 

Lactantius,  as  Gale  remarks,  employs  the  phrase  vitiis  im?nersi, 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  81 

immersed  or  plunged  in  vice ;  and  Origen,  in  his  commentary  on  John, 
uses  the  same  figure.  The  expression  of  the  former,  therefore,  must  be 
the  best  commentary  on  that  of  the  latter.  Vices  are  not  supposed  to 
be  poured  upon  the  vicious  person,  but  he  sinks  in  them.  We  ourselves 
speak  in  this  manner.  We  speak  of  a  man  who  sinks  in  vice.  Martial's 
figure — "  Lana  sanguine  conchse  ebria" — wool  drunk  with  the  blood  of 
the  shell-fish — also  affords  a  commentary  on  the  Greek  figure.  Here, 
wool  dipped  in  a  liquid  is  said  to  be  drunk  with  that  liquid  from  being 
completely  soaked  with  it.  Schwarzius,  indeed,  supposes  that  Shak- 
speare's  figure,  "  then  let  the  earth  be  drunken  with  our  blood,"  counte- 
nances the  supposition  that  baptizo,  though  it  primarily  signifies  to  dip, 
sometimes  signifies  pouring  or  sprinkling.  But  what  is  the  ground  of  this 
opinion  ?  Why,  it  is  this.  Baptizo,  sometimes,  is  figuratively  applied 
to  drunkenness,  and  drunkenness  is  sometimes  figuratively  applied  to  the 
earth  drenched  ivith  blood.  Therefore,  since  the  earth  is  drenched  with 
blood  by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  baptizo  must  sometimes  signify  pouring 
or  sprinkling.  This  states  the  evidence  as  fairly  as  any  can  desire.  But 
there  is  a  multitude  of  errors  here.  If  one  word  may  figuratively  be 
applied  to  an  object  literally  denoted  by  another  word,  does  it  follow 
that  they  mark  the  same  mode?  Is  there  any  likeness  between  the 
mode  of  drinking,  and  that  of  the  falling  of  blood  on  the  earth?  The 
earth  is  here  said  to  be  drunk  with  blood,  not  because  there  is  a 
likeness  between  the  manner  of  drinking  wine,  and  that  of  the  falling  of 
blood,  but  from  being  completely  drenched  with  blood,  without  any 
reference  to  the  manner  in  which  it  received  the  blood.  Indeed,  as 
there  is  no  likeness  between  the  falling  of  blood  on  the  earth,  and  the 
mode  of  drinking,  the  above  expression  is  the  clearest  proof  that  the 
expression  baptized  with  loinc  does  not  refer  to  the  same  mode.  It  might 
as  well  be  said,  that  the  expression,  Deut.  xxxii.  42,  "  I  will  make 
mine  arrows  drunk  with  blood,"  implies  a  proof  that  baptizo  signifies 
to  dip ;  because  arrows  are  besmeared  with  blood  by  being  dipped  in  the 
body.  But  this  would  be  false  criticism.  God's  arrows  are  supposed  to 
be  drunk  with  blood — not  from  the  manner  in  which  arrows  are  usually 
covered  with  blood,  but  from  the  abundance  of  the  blood  shed  by  them. 
These  observations  will  apply  to  all  the  examples  in  which  this  word 
is  applied  to  drunkenness.  I  need  not,  therefore,  examine  them  particu- 
larly :  but  I  must  refer  to  one  or  two,  to  show  how  ill  Mr.  Ewing's 
explication  will  apply  to  them.  "  Oino  tie  polio  Alexandron  baptisasa," — 
having  immersed  Alexander  in  wine, — that  is,  having  made  him  drunk 
with  wine.  This,  according  to  Mr.  Ewing's  explication,  would  be, 
"  having  poured  Alexander  with  much  wine,"  not  "  having  poured  much 
wine  into  Alexander."  This  would  be  pouring  the  man  into  the  wine, 
instead  of  pouring  the  wine  into  the  man.  "  Baptized  into  insensibility, 
and  sleep  under  drunkenness."  Now,  a  baptism  into  sleep,  we  have 
already  seen,  is  an  immersion.  Immersed,  or  buried  in  sleep,  is  a  phrase 
that  is  warrantable;  but  what  is  the  meaning  of  being  poured  into  sleep 
and  insensibility  ?  Here  it  is  not  supposed  that  sleep  is  poured  out  on 
the  person,  but  if  bebaptismenon  signifies  pouring,  the  person  must  have 
been  poured  out  into  sleep. 

11 


82  THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM. 

The  words,  dunamis  bebaptismene  en  to  bathei  toxi  s&matos,  Mr.  Ewing 
translates,  "  a  force  infused  into  (or  diffused  in)  the  inward  parts  of  the 
body."  This  translation,  however,  is  not  only  unwarranted  by  the  ori- 
ginal, but  is  as  unsuitable  to  the  supposition  that  baptizo  signifies  to 
pour,  as  that  it  signifies  to  immerse.  To  infuse  into  would  not  be  bap- 
tizein  en,  but  baptizcin  cis.  Does  Mr.  Ewing  mean  to  say,  that  the 
parenthetical  words  are  explanatory,  and  that  diffused  in  is  equivalent  to 
infused  into  ?  or  does  he  mean  that  they  are  two  different  meanings,  ot 
which  the  text  is  equally  susceptible?  A  strange  thing,  indeed,  if  the 
same  phrase  can  equally  signify  infused  into  a.nddiffuscd  in  !  In  English 
these  things  are  very  different.  Greek,  it  seems,  has  a  wonderful  fer- 
tility of  meaning.  When  a  controversialist  indulges  himself  in  a  license 
of  this  kind,  he  may  indeed  very  easily  prove  or  disprove  anything.  He 
has  nothing  to  do  but  make  the  text  speak  what  he  wants.  This  gives 
baptizo  a  new  meaning,  to  diffuse.  This  is  the  most  wonderful  word  that 
was  ever  found  in  any  language.  It  can  with  equal  facility  in  the  very 
same  phrase  denote  opposite  things.  To  diffuse  is  surely  the  opposite  of 
infuse.  It  is  very  true,  that  the  same  word  compounded  with  different 
prepositions  may  do  so,  as  is  the  case  with  infuse  and  diffuse ;  but  let  it 
be  observed  that  it  is  the  very  same  phrase  that  Mr.  Ewing  makes 
equally  susceptible  of  these  opposite  meanings.  This  surely  is  philolo- 
gical legerdemain.  Let  it  be  observed,  also,  that  Mr.  Ewing  supposes  that 
the  word  baptizo  itself  in  these  examples  signifies  to  pour  upon,  or  to  pour 
into.  Now  where  does  he  find  the  force  of  these  prepositions  in  the  Greek 
word  ?  If  it  signifies  to  pour,  it  does  not  signify  to  pour  into,  or  to  pour 
upon.  The  additional  idea  which  varies  the  word  so  materially,  must 
be  got  by  a  preposition  prefixed  or  following :  the  literal  translation  of 
the  above  example  is,  "  a  force  or  power  immersed  in  the  depth  of  the 
body."  To  immerse  in  the  depth  is  a  congruous  expression,  but  to  pour 
in  the  depth  is  altogether  incongruous. 

The  example  from  Plutarch  will  suit  my  purpose  well  enough  in 
Mr.  Ewing's  translation ;  "  for  as  plants  are  nourished  by  moderate,  but 
choked  by  excessive  watering,  (literally  waters,)  in  like  manner  the 
mind  is  enlarged  by  labours  suited  to  its  strength,  but  is  ovenchelmed 
(Gr.  baptized)  by  such  as  exceed  its  power."  Mr.  Ewing  says,  "  the 
reference  here  to  the  nourishment  of  plants,  indicates  pouring  only  to  be 
the  species  of  watering  alluded  to  in  the  term."  But  in  this  figure  there 
is  no  reference  at  all  to  the  mode  of  watering  plants.  The  reference  is 
to  the  quantity  of  water.  The  mode  is  not  mentioned;  but  even  were  it 
mentioned,  it  would  be  merely  a  circumstance  to  which  nothing  corre- 
sponds in  the  thing  illustrated.  What  critic  would  ever  think  of  hunt- 
ing after  such  likenesses  in  figurative  language?  There  is  actually  no 
likeness  between  the  mode  of  watering  plants,  and  the  proportioning  of 
labour  to  the  mind  of  a  pupil ;  and  Plutarch  is  not  guilty  of  such  ab- 
surdity. To  Plutarch's  figure  it  would  be  quite  the  same  thing,  if  a  pot 
of  plants  was  dipped  into  water,  instead  of  having  the  water  poured  into 
it.  The  pot  itself  might  be  dipped  in  water,  without  any  injury  to  the 
plants.  The  plants  are  injured  when  the  water  is  suffered  to  lie  about  them 
in  too  great  abundance,  in  whatever  way  it  has  been  applied.     The 


THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  83 

choking  of  the  plant  corresponds  to  the  suffocation  in  baptism,  or  im- 
mersion. The  choking  of  the  powers  of  the  mind  is  elegantly  illustrated 
by  the  choking  of  the  vegetable  powers  when  a  plant  is  covered  in  water. 
There  is  a  beautiful  allusion  to  the  suffocation  of  an  animal  under  water. 
Were  Plutarch  to  rise  from  the  dead,  with  what  indignation  would  he 
remonstrate  against  the  criticism  that  makes  him  refer  to  the  mode  of 
watering  plants,  in  a  figure  intended  to  illustrate  the  bad  effects  of  too 
much  study !  How  loudly  would  he  disclaim  the  cold,  unnatural 
thought !  Is  it  not  possible  figuratively  to  illustrate  something  by  a 
reference  to  the  mountains  buried  under  snow,  without  referring  to  the 
manner  of  its  falling,  and  pursuing  the  resemblance  to  the  Jlakes  of  fea- 
thered snoio?  So  far  from  this,  I  assert,  that  this  manner  of  explaining 
figures  is  universally  improper.  No  instance  could  be  more  beautifully 
decisive  in  our  favour  than  the  above  figure  of  Plutarch.  Mr.  Ewing 
makes  him  compare  the  choking  of  one  thing  to  the  overwhelming  of 
another.  But  the  author  himself  compares  the  choking  of  a  plant,  or 
the  extinction  of  vegetable  life,  to  the  choking  or  the  extinction  of  the 
mental  poioers ;  and  in  both  there  is  an  elegant  allusion  to  the  choking 
of  an  animal  under  water. 

But  even  on  Mr.  Ewing's  own  system,  his  explanation  of  this  example 
is  most  fatal  to  his  popping.  Baptizo  here  he  makes  to  signify  death  by 
too  much  water,  as  opposed  to  the  moderate  application  of  water.  If 
this  is  the  distinctive  meaning  of  baptizo,  it  cannot  also  denote  the 
smallest  application  of  water.  It  cannot  surely  designate  the  opposite 
extremes. 

The  word  is  frequently  applied  to  overwhelming  debt,  or  oppressive 
taxation :  "  tons  de  idiotas  dia  ten  ek  touton  euporian,  ou  baptizousi  tois 
eisphorais."  This  Mr.  Ewing  very  well  translates,  "  on  account  of  the 
abundant  supply  from  these  sources,  they  do  not  oppress  (or  overload, 
Gr.  baptize)  the  common  people  with  taxes."  But  neither  the  original 
nor  the  translation  will  bear  to  be  explained  by  the  assertion  that  they 
are  brought  to  support,  namely,  that  baptizo  sometimes  signifies  to  pour 
upon  ox  pour  into.  Taxes  are  not  supposed  in  this  figure  to  be  poured 
upon,  or  poured  into,  the  people  who  pay  them ;  and  overwhelming  taxes 
are  not  supposed  to  be  poured,  while  small  taxes  are  dropped  on  the 
people.  The  people  might  rather  be  said  to  pour  their  taxes  into  the 
treasury.  If  baptizousi  here  signifies  to  pour  upon,  or  pour  into,  as 
Mr.  Ewing  supposes,  the  translation,  when  literal,  will  be,  "  They  do  not 
pour  the  common  people  with  taxes,"  or  rather,  "  they  do  not  pour  into, 
or  pour  upon,  the  common  people  with  taxes."  If  any  man  can  take 
sense  out  of  this,  he  will  deserve  the  praise  of  invention.  But  in  this 
figure,  the  rulers  are  supposed  to  immerse  the  people,  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  the  oppressive  taxes.  The  literal  translation  is,  "They  do 
not  immerse  the  common  people  with  taxes."  The  people,  in  the  case  of 
oppressive  taxation,  are  not  in  such  figures  supposed  either  to  have  the 
taxes  poured  upon  them,  nor  themselves  to  be  immersed  in  the  taxes,  but 
to  sink  by  being  weighed  down  with  taxes.  The  taxes  are  not  the 
element  in  which  they  sink,  but  are  the  instrumental  baptizcrs.  They 
cause  the  people  to  sink  by  their  weight.     This  suits  the  words:  this 


84  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

suits  the  figure  :  this  suits  the  sense  :  this  suits  every  example  which 
refers  to  debt :  this  suits  the  analogy  of  all  other  languages.  We  say 
ourselves  dipped  in  debt,  drowned  in  debt,  sunk  by  debt,  or  sunk  in  debt. 
To  sink  in  debt  figures  the  debt  as  that  in  which  we  sink.  It  is  a  deep 
water  in  which  we  sink.  To  sink  by  debt  figures  the  debt  as  a  load  on 
our  shoulders,  while  we  are  in  deep  water.  In  this  view,  it  is  not  the 
drowning  element,  but  the  baptizer  or  drowner.  To  be  dipped  in  debt, 
supposes  that  we  owe  something  considerable  in  proportion  to  our  means. 
But  we  may  be  dipped  without  being  drowned.  The  last  cannot  be 
adequately  represented  by  baptizo,  except  when  circumstances  render  the 
meaning  definite.  The  Latin  language  recognises  the  same  analogy. 
Were  we  at  any  loss  with  respect  to  the  meaning  of  the  figure  in  Greek, 
the  JE>re  alieno  demersus  of  Livy  is  a  commentary.  This  supposes  that 
the  debtor  is  plunged  or  sunk  in  debt.  A  man  struggling  for  his  life  in 
the  midst  of  deep  water,  and  at  last  sinking  by  exhaustion,  is  a  true  pic- 
ture of  an  insolvent  debtor.  When  baptizo  occurs  in  such  a  situation, 
the  meaning  is  substantially  given  in  English  by  the  word  oppress,  or 
overload;  but  neither  of  them  is  a  translation.  They  convey  the  mean- 
ing under  the  figure  of  a  load;  the  other  gives  the  idea  under  the  figure 
of  immersion. 

The  same  observation  applies  to  the  next  example,  which  Mr.  Ewing 
quotes  from  Josephus,  p.  302,  translated  by  Mr.  Ewing,  "  those,  indeed, 
even  without  (engaging  in)  faction,  afterwards  overburdened  or  oppressed 
(Gr.  baptized)  the  city.  The  original  is  stronger  than  the  translation. 
It  asserts  that  the  robbers  ruined,  or  sunk  the  city.  The  passage  is 
translated  by  Whiston,  "  although  these  very  men,  besides  the  seditions 
they  raised,  were  otherwise  the  direct  cause  of  the  city's  destruction  also." 
The  reference  is  to  a  ship  sinking  from  being  overburdened,  and  ill- 
managed  in  the  storm,  from  the  dissensions  of  the  crew.  In  this  view, 
the  figure  is  striking  and  beautiful.  But  how  can  Mr.  Ewing  accom- 
modate even  his  own  translation  to  his  definition  of  the  meaning  of  the 
word  baptizo  in  such  examples?  In  them,  he  says,  it  is  used  in  the 
sense  of  pouring  upon  and  pouring  into.  What  did  the  robbers  pour 
upon  or  into  the  city  ?  Besides,  there  is  neither  upon  nor  into  here. 
If  the  word  baptizo  signifies  to  pour,  the  translation  literally  will  be, 
"  they  poured  the  city."  This  will  not  accommodate  to  Mr.  Ewing's 
own  definition  of  the  meaning  of  the  word,  more  than  ours.  Again, 
even  according  to  Mr.  Ewing's  own  translation  of  this  passage,  the  word 
baptizo  here  denotes  something  in  excess.  What  aspect  has  this  towards 
the  popping  system  1     A  few  drops  of  water  is  not  an  oppressive  load. 

Josephus  uses  the  same  figure  on  another  occasion.  Speaking  of 
Herod's  sons,  he  says,  "  touto  osper  teleutaia  thuella  cheimazomenous  tons 
neaniskous  epebaptisen,"  p.  704.  This  is  a  commentary  on  the  preceding 
example,  and  limits  the  figure  to  a  ship  sinking.  In  the  former  case, 
the  ship  was  overburdened,  and  there  was  a  mutiny  among  the  sailors. 
Here  the  ship  is  attacked  by  repeated  storms,  and  at  last  is  sunk  by  a 
hurricane.  The  word  clieimazomenous  imports,  that  the  young  men 
had  a  winter  voyage,  in  which  they  were  attacked  by  many  storms,  and 
at  last  were  plunged  into  the  abyss  by  an  overwhelming  blast.  Whiston, 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  85 

who  has  no  purpose  to  serve,  translates  it  thus :  "  and  this  it  was  that 
came  as  the  last  storm,  and  entirely  sunk  the  young  men,  when  they 
were  in  great  danger  before."  What  has  popping  or  pouring  to  say 
here? 

The  very  next  example  which  Mr.  Ewing  quotes  in  the  sense  of  over- 
whclming  by  being  overburdened,  definitely  refers  to  sinking  in  water : 
"lam  one  of  those  who  have  been  overwhelmed  by  that  great  wave  of 
calamity."  Now,  what  allusion  is  there  here  to  pouring  upon,  pouring 
into,  or  pouring  of  any  kind  ?  Yet  this  is  one  of  the  examples  brought 
by  Mr.  Ewing,  to  prove  that  the  word  sometimes  signifies  to  pour  upon, 
and  pour  into,  till  mind  and  body  are  overwhelmed.  What  was  poured 
upon  or  poured  into  this  person  ?  Is  it  supposed  that  the  wave  gradually 
poured  on  him  till  it  sunk  him  ?  Nay,  verily.  He  is  said  to  be  bap- 
tized under  the  wave.  Indeed,  a  wave  does  not  cover  by  pouring,  but 
by  flowing,  dashing,  or  sweeping  horizontally.  In  the  overwhelming  by 
a  wave,  there  is  no  likeness  to  pouring  or  popping,  and  the  object  is  as 
completely  covered  by  the  wave,  as  when  it  is  dipped.  Besides,  the 
person  is  here  supposed  to  be  forced  down  into  the  water  below,  by 
the  weight  of  the  superincumbent  wave.  The  wave  is  the  baptizer, 
not  the  thing  in  which  he  is  baptized.  He  is  baptized  under  the 
wave.  And  can  there  be  a  stronger  proof  that  baptism  is  immersion  ? 
Let  Mr.  Ewing  perform  baptism  according  to  his  own  translation  of 
this  passage,  and  he  will  act  as  differently  from  his  own  mode  as  from 
ours.  Let  the  baptized  person  be  overwhelmed  with  water,  and  he  will 
be  buried  in  water. 

Another  example  of  this  figure  from  the  same  author,  is  entirely 
decisive  in  our  favour.  Liban.  Ep.  310.  "  He  who  bears  with  diffi- 
culty the  burden  he  already  has,  would  be  entirely  overwhelmed  (or 
crushed)  by  a  small  addition."  Is  it  possible  to  squeeze  the  idea  of 
pouring  out  of  the  word  in  this  occurrence?  A  burden  is  not  poured 
on  the  shoulders.  Besides,  it  is  not  the  putting  of  the  burden  on  the 
man,  that  is  here  called  baptism.  The  baptism  is  effected  by  the  burden 
after  it  is  put  on.     The  burden  causes  the  man  to  sink. 

The  example  which  Mr.  Ewing  quotes  from  Plutarch,  is  already 
decided  by  the  evidence  produced  with  respect  to  the  allusion  when  the 
figure  respects  debt :  "  Oppressed  by  a  debt  of  5000  myriads."  This 
debt  was  not  poured  upon  him,  nor  poured  into  him ;  but,  oppressed  by 
it  as  a  load,  he  sunk  or  became  insolvent.  The  figure  does  not  represent 
the  mode  of  putting  the  debt  on  him,  for  in  this  there  is  no  likeness.  It 
represents  the  debt  when  on  him  as  causing  him  to  sink. 

The  example  from  Heliod.  ^Ethiop.  lib.  iv.  can,  by  no  ingenuity,  be 
reconciled  to  the  assertion  which  Mr.  Ewing  brings  it  to  support :  "  And 
overwhelmed  with  the  calamity."  If  baptizo  is  supposed  to  signify  to 
pour,  this  passage  must  be  translated,  "  and  poured  by  or  with  the 
calamity."  The  calamity  is  not  poured  upon  him,  but  the  calamity 
pours  him.  But  to  be  immersed,  or  to  sink,  by  calamity,  is  good  sense, 
and  a  common  form  of  speech.  This  also  is  baptism  by  immersion,  and 
can  be  nothing  else.  What  is  more  common  than  to  speak  of  sinking 
under  misfortunes  ? 


86  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

In  like  manner  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  p.  72,  speaks  of  persons  as 
delivered  from  the  difficulties  in  which  they  were  immersed.  But  the 
observation  of  Schelhornius,  renders  the  reference  in  this  figure  entirely 
definite.  After  quoting  a  number  of  examples  in  which  the  word  is 
applied  figuratively  to  calamities,  he  observes,  with  great  sagacity,  that 
the  same  sentiment  is  expressed  in  the  same  author  by  the  word  buthi- 
zcsthai,  which  determines  his  meaning  when  he  uses  the  word  baptizo  to 
express  the  same  thing.  "  Sunk  into  the  deep  by  a  greater  wave  or  tide 
of  misfortunes."  Now,  that  buthizo  denotes  to  cover,  to  sink  in  the  abyss, 
there  can  be  no  doubt.  It  is  a  verb  formed  from  the  appropriate  name 
of  the  great  abyss.  Baptizo,  then,  as  expressing  the  same  thing,  must 
agree  with  it  in  the  general  idea,  though  it  characteristically  differs  from 
it  in  strength  of  expression.  In  some  circumstances,  they  may  both 
refer  to  the  same  thing,  while  in  others  they  have  a  characteristic  dif- 
ference. No  evidence  can  be  more  satisfactory  in  determining  the 
meaning  of  a  word  than  this.  It  is  indirect,  and  would  be  hid  from 
the  ordinary  reader  ;  but  when  sagacity  points  it  out,  no  candid  mind 
can  reject  it.  This  also  confirms  an  observation  which  I  have  made  on 
another  example,  namely,  that  to  be  baptized  by  a  wave,  does  not  import 
that  the  baptism  was  in  the  wave,  but  under  it;  and  that  the  wave  is 
the  baptizer,  or  power  that  sinks  the  baptized  person  under  it.  Here 
the  great  wave  not  only  covered  the  person  itself,  but  sunk  him  below 
itself  into  the  deep. 

The  Septuagint  renders  Isaiah  xxi.  4,  "  iniquity  immerses  me,"  trans- 
lated by  Mr.  Ewing,  "  iniquity  overwhelms  me."  "  Here,"  he  says,  "  the 
idea  of  plunging  into  is  excluded.  The  subject  of  baptism  is  viewed  as 
having  something  poured  or  brought  upon  him.  He  is  not  popped  into 
the  baptizing  substance,  but  it  pops  upon  him."  And  pray,  Mr.  Ewing, 
who  pops  this  iniquity  upon  the  baptized  person  ?  Is  iniquity  itself  the 
popper  ?  Is  not  iniquity  the  thing  with  which  he  is  popped  ?  Is  it  both 
popper  and  popped  ?  But  if  iniquity  pops  him  with  itself,  does  not  this 
represent  sin  as  coming  on  the  sinner  of  itself?  But  Mr.  Ewing  most 
manifestly  mistakes  the  meaning  of  this  phrase.  The  expression,  "  ini- 
quity baptizeth  me,"  does  not  mean  that  iniquity  comes  on  him  either 
by  popping  or  dipping,  either  by  pouring  or  sprinkling ;  but  that  his 
sin,  which  originated  in  himself,  and  never  was  put  on  him  in  any  mode, 
sunk  him  in  misery.  Our  iniquities  cause  us  to  sink  in  deep  waters. 
This  example  is,  with  all  others  in  which  the  word  occurs  either  in  its 
literal  or  figurative  use,  completely  in  our  favour.  Iniquity  is  the  bap- 
tizer, and,  instead  of  popping  the  subjects  of  its  baptism,  would  sink 
them  eternally  in  the  lake  that  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone,  were 
they  not  delivered  by  that  which  is  represented  in  the  baptism  of  Chris- 
tians. Upon  the  whole,  there  is  not  one  of  all  the  examples  of  the 
figurative  use  of  this  word,  which  will  not  fairly  explain  in  perfect 
accordance  with  the  literal  meaning  which  we  attach  to  it,  while  many 
of  them  can  bear  no  other  meaning.  So  far  from  all  explaining  with 
an  allusion  to  p>ouring ,  there  is  not  one  of  them,  taking  all  circumstances 
together,  will  fairly  explain  in  that  meaning.  There  is  not  one  instance 
in  which  Mr.  Ewing  can  show,  that  the  reference  must  necessarily  be  to 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  87 

pouring.  All  languages  employ  corresponding  words  in  the  same 
figurative  meaning  for  which  we  contend  in  the  above  examples.  No 
evidence  can  be  more  entirely  satisfactory. 

The  figurative  baptism  of  our  Lord  is  quite  in  accordance  with  those 
examples  in  which  the  word  is  used  for  afflictions.  Matt.  xx.  22 ;  Mark 
x.  37.  In  accordance  with  this  view,  also,  he  is  represented  in  the  pro- 
phetical parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  immersed  in  deep  waters.  "  Save 
me,  O  God,  for  the  waters  are  come  in  unto  my  soul.  I  sink  in  deep 
mire,  where  there  is  no  standing ;  I  am  come  into  deep  waters,  where 
the  floods  overflow  me."  Psa.  Ixix.  1,  2,  14.  In  like  manner,  the  afflic- 
tions of  the  church  are  represented  by  this  figure.  "  Then  the  waters 
had  overwhelmed  us,  the  stream  had  gone  over  our  soul :  then  the 
proud  waters  had  gone  over  our  soul."  Psa.  cxxiv.  4,  5,  &c.  The 
enemies  of  the  Lord,  also,  and  of  his  people,  are  represented  as  destroyed 
by  immersion  in  deep  waters.  "  Then  will  I  make  their  waters  deep, 
and  cause  their  rivers  to  run  like  oil,  saith  the  Lord  God."  Ezek. 
xxxii.  14. 

The  baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  a  figure  that  has  its  foundation  in 
immersion,  by  which  the  abundance  of  his  gifts  and  influences,  and  the 
sanctification  of  the  whole  body  and  soul,  are  represented.  That  which 
is  immersed  in  a  fluid  is  completely  subjected  to  its  influence,  as  wool 
is  said  to  be  drunk  with  the  blood  of  the  shell-fish.  So  the  sanctifica- 
tion of  the  believer  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  through  faith  in  the  atoning 
blood  of  Christ,  is  figuratively  called  an  immersion  or  a  baptism.  But 
this  and  the  preceding  figure  I  shall  meet  again,  in  the  examination  of 
the  theory  of  Mr.  Ewing. 

Section  XTII. — Examination  of  Mr.  Ewing's  System. — Having 
considered  the  evidence  for  the  meaning  of  this  word  from  its  occurrences 
in  Greek  writers,  I  shall  now  examine  the  new  theory  proposed  by  Mr. 
Ewing.  This  writer  pretends  to  have  discovered  the  signification  of 
bapto,  by  reducing  it  to  its  radical  letters ;  and  by  interchanging  labials 
and  vowels,  he  forms  the  word  pop  from  the  sound.  For  an  admirable 
exposure  of  this  fancy,  I  refer  the  reader  to  Dr.  Cox.  But  the  very 
attempt  is  absurd  and  ludicrous.  It  could  not  succeed  on  any  subject, 
or  with  respect  to  any  word.  It  is  entitled  to  no  more  consideration, 
than  an  attempt  to  decide  by  an  appeal  to  the  cry  of  birds.  The  thought 
of  settling  a  religious  controversy  about  the  meaning  of  a  word  in  a  par- 
ticular language,  by  speculations  with  respect  to  its  radical  letters,  as 
applying  to  all  languages,  is  certainly  one  of  the  wildest  conceits  that 
has  been  broached  in  criticism  since  the  birth  of  that  art.  Upon  this 
theory,  I  shall  do  no  more  than  make  a  few  observations. 

1.  It  applies  etymology  utterly  beyond  its  province.  Etymology,  as 
a  foundation  for  argument,  can  never  proceed  beyond  the  root  existing 
as  a  tcord  in  the  language,  whose  meaning  can  be  learned  from  its  use. 
To  trace  a  word  to  a  more  remote  ancestry,  is  to  relate  fable  for  history. 

2.  When  etymologists  go  farther,  they  do  not  pretend  to  give  a 
meaning  to  a  word  which  it  is  not  found  to  have  by  use,  nor  to  reject 
any  meaning  which  use  has  assigned.     They  do  not  pretend  to  regulate 


88  THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM. 

language  by  assigning  meanings  from  origin,  but,  from  a  comparison 
of  actually  ascertained  meanings,  to  assign  a  probable  root.  The  value 
of  their  discoveries  is  not  from  their  authority  in  settling  controversies 
about  the  meanings  that  use  has  actually  assigned  to  the  words 
which  they  analyze,  but  from  the  light  which  they  reflect  on  the  philo- 
sophy of  language,  and  the  science  of  mind.  So  far  from  having 
authority  in  theological  controversy,  their  researches  have  no  authority 
in  criticism,  with  respect  to  the  use  of  words  in  classical  writers. 
Classical  writers  are  an  authority  to  the  etymologist,  but  the  etymologist 
cannot  give  law  to  the  classics.  The  etymologist  must  collect,  and 
from  use  ascertain,  the  various  meanings  of  a  word, — on  the  authority 
of  which  he  may  venture  a  conjecture  of  an  origin  higher  than  that 
of  any  word  now  in  the  language.  By  a  comparison  of  these  meanings, 
he  may  discover  a  common  idea,  and  thereby  be  enabled  to  determine 
the  primary  meaning.  But  without  this  authority,  the  primary 
meaning  can  never  be  ascertained  by  the  mere  sound  of  radical  letters. 
It  may  be  true  that  particular  radical  letters  are  found  in  words  that 
designate  a  common  idea ;  but  that  this  is  the  case,  and  how  far  it  is  the 
case,  depends  on  ascertaining  from  use  the  actual  meaning  of  the  words. 
If  the  meaning  of  words  may  lawfully  be  ascertained  from  the  radical 
letters  which  they  contain,  instead  of  the  tedious  process  of  reading  the 
classics,  and  acquiring  the  meaning  of  words  from  their  use,  we  may 
at  once  proceed  to  reduce  them  to  their  radical  sounds,  and  determine 
their  import  by  this  philological  chemistry.  Mr.  Ewing  not  only  fails 
in  this  instance  of  analysis,  but  utterly  mistakes  the  true  object  of 
etymological  researches.  His  attempt  is  not  calculated  to  throw  light 
on  the  philosophy  of  language,  nor  illustrate  the  processes  and  relations 
of  human  thought,  but  converts  etymology  into  a  sort  of  philological 
alchemy. 

3.  Were  the  origin  of  bapto  to  be  traced,  even  with  the  utmost  cer- 
tainty, to  some  other  word  or  words  in  the  language,  its  meaning  in  the 
language  must  be  determined  by  its  use  in  the  language,  and  not  by  its 
origin.  Words  often  depart  widely  in  their  use  from  the  meaning  of 
their  root.  They  may  drop  some  idea  that  was  at  first  essential,  or  they 
may  embrace  ideas  not  originally  implied. 

4.  In  analyzing  any  word,  the  etymologist  must  be  guided  not  merely 
by  the  consideration  that  the  letters  that  compose  it  have  the  appearance 
of  indicating  a  certain  origin,  but,  especially  as  a  ground-work,  that 
such  an  origin  corresponds  to  its  known  and  acknowledged  mean- 
ing. And  when  we  have  found  such  an  origin  to  a  word,  it  is  of  no 
authority  in  argument,  as  it  takes  the  meaning  of  the  word  for  granted. 
If  pop  were  the  ascertained  and  acknowledged  meaning  of  bapto,  the 
etymologist  might  employ  his  art  to  reduce  the  one  word  to  the  other. 
But  even  then,  the  evidence  that  the  one  was  the  parent  of  the  other, 
would  depend  on  the  fact  that  the  meaning  was  ascertained  by  use,  and 
could  not  rest  on  the  coincidence  in  sounds.  That  rain  comes  from 
raino,  to  sprinkle,  and  plunge  from  pliino,  &c,  depends  on  the  fact,  that 
the  meaning  of  the  one  word  is  known  by  use  to  correspond  to  the 
meaning  of  the  other.     Were  there  no  such  correspondence  in  known 


THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  89 

signification,  the  correspondence  in  sound  would  be  no  foundation  for 
derivation.  Many  words  correspond  as  nearly  in  sound,  which  have  no 
relation.  In  deriving  a  word,  therefore,  by  reducing  it  to  its  radical 
letters,  the  etymologist,  if  he  acts  agreeably  to  the  sound  principles  of 
his  art,  must  have  all  the  meanings  of  the  derived  word  previously 
ascertained,  as  a  ground-work  for  his  conclusions :  they  are  data 
which  in  his  process  must  be  taken  for  granted.  But  if  the  meanings 
of  a  word  are  taken  for  granted  in  this  process,  the  object  of  the  process 
cannot  be  to  ascertain  a  doubtful  meaning.  If  the  word  bapto  has  not 
from  use  all  the  meanings  which  Mr.  Ewing  assigns  to  it,  no  etymo- 
logical process  can  give  any  of  these  meanings  to  it,  for  they  must  be  all 
taken  for  granted,  as  a  foundation  for  his  deductions. 

5.  This  theory  assigns  to  bapto,  as  its  primary  meaning,  a  significa- 
tion which  use  has  not  given  it  in  a  single  instance.  Indeed,  though 
the  author  endeavours  to  conform  the  examples  to  this  primary  accepta- 
tion, he  does  not  pretend  to  have  derived  it  from  the  examples.  He 
concludes  that  the  primary  meaning  of  this  word  is  pop,  from  the  sound, 
and  from  its  correspondence  to  the  other  meanings.  That  bapto  has 
such  a  primary  meaning  there  is  no  evidence.  If  pop  really  embraced 
all  the  significations  assigned  by  Mr.  Ewing  to  bapto,  he  might  allege, 
that  it  is  probable  that  the  word  once  •signified  to  pop;  but  this  would 
not  be  proof  that  it  had  any  such  signification  during  the  period  to 
which  the  writings  now  extant  in  the  Greek  language  belong.  This 
could  be  proved  only  by  examples  from  these  authors.  Whatever  is 
the  origin  of  the  word  bapto,  it  never  signifies  pop. 

6.  To  prove  that  any  meaning  is  sanctioned  by  use,  it  is  not  sufficient 
that  there  are  examples  of  its  occurrence  which  will  explain  on  this 
meaning.  There  is  no  word  of  frequent  occurrence,  which  in  some 
situations  might  not  bear  a  false  translation,  or  explain  in  a  sense  which 
it  really  never  has,  without  making  nonsense.  Nay,  a  false  translation 
of  a  word  may,  in  many  situations,  make  good  sense,  and  even  express 
a  scriptural  truth,  though  not  the  truth  of  the  passage.  Before  the 
authority  of  use,  therefore,  can  be  pleaded  for  a  meaning,  a  passage  must 
be  produced  in  which  the  word  must  have  the  meaning  assigned.  This 
is  self-evident.  I  state  it,  therefore,  as  a  canon,  or  first  principle  of 
criticism,  that  in  controversy  a  word  occurring  frequently  in 

THE  LANGUAGE  IS  NEVER  TO  BE  TAKEN  ARBITRARILY  IN  A  SENSE  WHICH 
IT  CANNOT  BE  SHOWN  INCONTESTABLY  TO  HAVE  IN  SOME  OTHER  PASSAGE. 

An  acknowledged  sense  is  necessary  as  a  foundation  on  which  to  rest 
the  supposition,  that  in  the  contested  passage  it  may  have  the  signification 
assigned.  There  is  no  ground  to  allege  that  the  word  has  a  signification 
in  the  contested  passage,  which  it  is  not  proved  to  have  in  some  other 
place.  It  may  have  this  authority  and  fail ;  but  without  this  it  cannot 
succeed.  A  meaning  not  so  proved  has  no  right  to  be  heard  in  contro- 
versy. I  have  limited  the  canon  to  controversy,  but,  in  fact,  it  extends 
in  some  measure  to  matters  in  which  men  do  not  find  an  inducement  to 
dispute.  Many  of  the  beasts  and  fishes  and  fowls  and  plants  mentioned 
in  the  Old  Testament,  cannot  be  now  exactly  and  confidently  ascertained 
by  us,  for  want  of  this    criterion  ;    and    although  there  is    no  warm 

12 


90  THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM. 

controversy  about  these  things,  it  is  because  there  is  no  temptation 
from  the  subject.  If  a  word  occurs  so  seldom  in  what  remains  of  any 
language,  and  in  such  circumstances  as  cannot  definitely  determine  its 
meaning,  nothing  can  be  legitimately  rested  on  it  in  controversy.  Now 
this  canon  sweeps  away  not  only  Mr.  Ewing's  theory,  but  all  other 
systems  that  give  a  meaning  to  baptizo,  different  from  that  for  which  we 
contend.  There  is  not  one  instance  in  all  the  Greek  language  in  which 
it  necessarily  signifies  to  pour,  sprinkle,  &c.  Our  opponents  have  not 
an  acknowledged  foundation  on  which  to  rest  the  opinion,  that,  with 
respect  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  the  word  baptizo  may  have  the 
meaning  for  which  they  contend ;  for  in  no  instance  can  it  be  proved  to 
have  such  a  meaning.  On  the  contrary,  even  Mr.  Ewing  himself,  the 
boldest  of  all  the  critics  on  that  side  of  the  question,  does  not  deny  that 
this  word  sometimes  signifies  to  dip ;  nay,  he  himself  gives  many  exam- 
ples in  which  it  must  have  this  signification. 

7.  I  will  state  another  canon  equally  self-evident,  and  equally  fatal  to 
the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Ewing,  and  all  our  opponents :  a  word  that  applies 
to  two  modes  can  designate  neithek.  The  same  word  cannot  express 
different  modes,  though  a  word  not  significant  of  mode  may  apply  to  all 
modes.  Wash,  for  instance,  may  refer  to  the  action  designated  by  it, 
in  whatever  mode  it  may  be  performed.  Whether  it  is  done  by  dipping 
or  by  pouring,  the  word  wash  does  not  assert.  It  is  indifferent  as  to 
mode,  although  even  here  one  mode  is  more  common  than  another. 
Stain,  in  like  manner,  asserts  nothing  of  mode,  but  applies  to  all  modes. 
A  thing  may  be  stained  by  sprinkling,  by  pouring,  or  by  dipping.  Wet 
also  applies  to  all  modes.  A  thing  may  be  wetted  by  dipping,  by  pour- 
ing, by  sprinkling,  by  the  insensible  distillation  of  the  dew,  by  damp. 
The  word  expresses  the  effect  only,  and  says  nothing  of  the  mode.  But 
it  would  be  both  false  and  absurd  to  say  that  these  words  signify  all 
these  modes.  They  express  nothing  of  mode.  Modes  are  essentially 
different  from  one  another,  and  have  nothing  in  common.  One  word, 
then,  cannot  possibly  distinguish  them.  The  name  of  a  mode  is  the 
word  which  expresses  it  as  distinguished  from  other  modes.  But  it  is 
impossible  for  the  same  word  to  express  the  distinction  of  two  modes. 
It  might  more  reasonably  be  supposed,  that  the  word  black  may  also  be 
employed  to  signify  the  idea  denoted  by  white,  as  well  as  the  idea  which 
it  is  employed  to  designate,  because  black  and  white  admit  of  degrees ; 
but  there  are  no  degrees  in  mode.  Without  reference,  then,  to  the 
practice  of  the  language,  on  the  authority  of  self-evident  truth,  I  assert 
that  bapto  cannot  signify  both  dip,  and  pour  or  sprinkle.  I  assert,  that 
in  no  language  under  heaven  can  one  zoord  designate  two  modes.  Now 
we  have  the  confession  of  our  opponents  themselves,  that  baptizo  signi- 
fies to  dip.     If  so,  it  cannot  also  signify  to  pour  or  sprinkle. 

8.  The  various  meanings  that  Mr.  Ewing  assigns  to  this  word,  will 
not  derive  from  pop.  His  theory,  then,  has  not  the  merit  even  of  con- 
sistency, which  a  false  theory  may  have.  He  asserts,  indeed,  that  all 
the  meanings  which  he  admits  may  easily  be  reduced  to  this  word ; 
and  that  each  holds  of  it,  independently  of  all  the  rest.  But  how  does 
he  make  out  this  assertion  ?     By  making  as  many  compounds  cfi  pop,  as 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  91 

bapto  is  supposed  to  have  meanings.  In  each  of  these  meanings,  it 
becomes,  in  fact,  a  different  word.  Pop  in,  pop  out ;  pop  up,  pop  down ; 
pop  backward,  pop  forward,  &c,  are  different  compound  words,  as  much 
as  diffuse  is  different  from  infuse.  Now,  if  the  word  bapto  signifies 
merely  to  pop,  it  cannot  signify  to  pop  up,  to  pop  down,  &c,  by  its  own 
power.  It  must  have  something  added  to  give  it  such  a  meaning.  It  is 
false,  then,  to  say  that  bapto  has  all  these  significations.  But  if  bapto 
signifies  to  pour,  it  does  so  without  the  aid  of  any  other  word :  if  it 
signifies  to  sprinkle,  it  must  do  so  by  itself.  It  signifies  to  dip,  without 
the  aid  of  any  other  word.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  baptizo  admits  com- 
position with  prepositions,  but  this  is  not  to  enable  it  to  signify  to  dip : 
for  if  this  were  the  case,  it  could  never  have  that  signification  without 
the  preposition  in  composition.  But  it  has  this  signification  where  there 
is  no  such  composition.  Indeed,  there  are  but  few  of  its  occurrences 
in  which  it  admits  the  composition.  It  was  indeed  a  conceit  of  the 
great  Dr.  Owen,  that  baptizo  cannot  denote  to  dip,  except  in  composi- 
tion with  en  or  eis.  But  this  is  contradicted  by  use,  and  by  the  analogy 
of  other  words,  as  is  well  remarked  by  Mr.  Booth.  Besides,  if  bapto 
signifies  to  pop,  and  if  pop  can  apply  to  none  of  the  meanings  which  bapto 
is  said  to  have,  without  the  aid  of  a  preposition,  then  it  cannot  be  said 
that  bapto  signifies  to  pour  or  sprinkle.    It  only  signifies  a  part  of  that  idea. 

Again,  when  the  compound  is  formed,  it  will  not  produce  the  mean- 
ings contended  for.  To  pop  upon  does  not  signify  to  sprinkle,  for  there 
may  be  a  popping  upon,  when  there  is  no  sprinkling,  though  sprinkling 
may  be  performed  by  popping  upon.  In  the  very  example  alleged  by 
Mr.  Ewing,  there  is  popping  upon  without  sprinkling. 

"  A  fellow  finding  somewhat  prick  him,  popped  his  finger  upon  the 
place."  Did  he  sprinkle  his  finger  upon  the  place?  But  if  there  is 
popping  upon  without  sprinkling,  then  popping  upon  will  not  signify 
sprinkling  without  something  to  limit  it  still  farther.  Granting,  then, 
that  bapto  signifies  to  pop,  for  this  very  reason  it  cannot  signify  to  sprinkle. 

In  the  same  manner  it  may  be  proved,  that  if  bapto  signifies  to  pop  in 
or  into,  it  does  not  signify  to  pour ;  for  there  may  be  popping  in  or  into 
without  pouring.     Mr.  Ewing's  own  example  proves  this : 

"He  that  kill'd  my  kin?, 
Popt  in  between  th'  election  and  my  hopes." 

There  was  no  pouring  here.  But  a  word  that  does  not  necessarily  imply 
pouring,  cannot  signify  pouring. 

Even  with  the  addition  of  the  word  loatcr  itself,  the  idea  is  not  made 
out.  If  we  substitute  loatcr  for  finger  in  the  above  example,  we  shall 
fail  in  the  attempt  to  express  sprinkling.  The  fellow  might  pop  water 
upon  the  place  without  sprinkling.  In  like  manner,  there  may  even  be 
popping  into  water,  without  immersion.  When  a  boy  pops  a  duck  into 
the  water,  she  does  not  sink.  Mr.  Ewing,  then,  has  failed  in  every  point 
of  view.  Even  the  expression,  "  he  popped  water  into  his  turned  up  face," 
Mr.  Ewing's  favourite  expression  for  baptizing,  does  not  express  either 
pouring  or  sprinkling.  So  far  from  necessarily  implying  that  the  water 
was  poured  or  sprinkled,  it  naturally  implies  that  the  water  was  cast  by 


92  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

a  jerk  or  slight  dash,  and  not  by  drops,  or  by  a  stream.  Instead,  then, 
of  accounting  for  all  the  meanings  attached  by  Mr.  Ewing  to  the  word 
bapto,  it  does  not  account  for  any  one  of  these  meanings. 

Still  less  will  this  derivation  account  for  dyeing  as  a  meaning  of  bapto. 
How  is  it  possible,  that  if  bapto  primarily  signifies  to  pop,  it  could  also 
receive  the  signification  to  dye  ?  Mr.  Ewing  answers  this,  by  supposing 
that  a  thing  may  be  dyed,  by  having  the  colouring  liquor  popped  upon 
it,  and  by  the  supposition,  that  the  art  of  dyeing  was  suggested  by  the 
accidental  staining  of  things  by  the  juice  of  fruits.  But  this  account  is 
totally  unphilosophical.  All  this  may  be  true,  yet  be  insufficient  to 
account  for  the  fact.  Accidental  and  infrequent  union  cannot  originate 
a  meaning  founded  on  such  union.  It  is  not  priority  of  the  mode  of 
doing  anything,  but  the  frequency  of  doing  in  a  mode,  that  will  confer 
the  name  of  the  mode  on  the  thing  effected  in  such  mode.  This  is  the 
voice  both  of  philosophy  and  of  fact.  Thus,  cano,  to  sing,  came  to  signify 
to  foretell,  because  prophets  uttered  their  predictions  in  song.  This 
principle  operates  very  extensively  in  language.  I  have  already  exem- 
plified the  thing  in  many  instances.  Bapto,  to  dip,  comes  naturally  to 
signify  to  dye,  from  the  frequency  of  dyeing  by  dipping.  But  there 
never  was  such  a  frequency  of  dyeing  by  sprinkling,  as  would,  on  philo- 
sophical principles,  give  the  name  of  the  mode  to  the  thing  effected  in 
that  mode.  Besides,  if  bapto  primarily  signifies  to  pop,  and  if  it  came 
to  signify  to  dye,  because  dyeing  was  usually  performed  by  popping, 
then  dyeing  must  have  been  performed  neither  by  pouring  nor  sprinkling, 
for  popping,  as  I  have  shown,  is  different  from  both.  It  is  impossible 
philosophically  to  account  for  dyeing  as  a  meaning  of  bapto  on  any  other 
principle,  than  that  this  word  primarily  signifies  to  dip. 

Again,  if  bapto  came  to  signify  to  dye,  because  that  the  art  of  dyeing 
was  suggested  by  the  accidental  stains  from  the  bruising  of  fruits,  why 
did  not  pop  accompany  its  relative  in  this  signification?  Why  did  not 
Milton  say,  "  colours  popped  in  heaven,"  instead  of  "  colours  dipped  in 
heaven  V  There  is  no  end  to  the  absurdity  of  this  fantastic  theory  ;  it 
is  a  mine  of  inconsistency  that  never  could  be  exhausted.  This  is  the 
necessary  condition  of  all  false  theories.  However  plausible  they  may 
be  made  by  the  ingenuity  of  their  inventors,  they  must  contain  incon- 
sistency that  will  sometimes  pop  out  its  head,  and  show  itself  even  to 
the  most  indolent  readers.  But  truth  is  consistent ;  and,  although  many 
apparent  difficulties  may  at  first  sight  occur,  they  will  gradually  disap- 
pear, as  light  is  cast  on  the  subject  by  inquiry.  Even  when  its  defenders, 
by  inadvertency,  couple  it  with  something  extrinsic,  that  tends  to  obscure 
and  mar  its  evidence,  the  ingenuity  of  opponents  will  only  have  the 
good  effect  of  separating  the  chaff  from  the  wheat. 

But  no  absurdity  can  vie  with  that  of  supposing  that  a  word  of  so 
peculiar  and  restricted  a  meaning  as  pop  is  represented  to  be,  should  be 
accounted  so  generic,  that  it  becomes  the  liege  lord  of  innumerable 
different  significations,  that  do  not  arise  the  one  out  of  the  other,  but 
hold  immediately  of  itself.  Nay,  according  to  Mr.  Ewing's  philosophy, 
it  might  become  the  liege  lord  of  half  the  language.  Instead  of  originally 
representing  a  very  generic  idea,  it  is  supposed  primarily  to  signify  a 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  93 

particular  sound, — a  small  smart  quick  sound.  It  is  said  to  be  a  word 
"  formed  from  the  sound."  All  its  applications  agree  to  this;  and  pop 
itself  never  came  to  have  the  acceptations  that  Mr.  Ewing  supposes 
bapto  to  have.  We  never  find  this  word  applied  to  any  things,  but  such 
as  are  of  a  trifling  or  playful  nature.  We  never  hear  of  a  shipwreck  as 
a  popping  of  the  ship  into  the  deep.  This  would  be  ludicrous.  Pop, 
instead  of  being  a  generic  word,  is  as  specific  a  word, as  can  be  ima- 
gined, and  never  was  actually  extended  to  serious  or  important  things, 
except  to  burlesque  them.  Indeed,  instead  of  being  a  liege  lord,  con- 
ferring ample  and  separate  territories  on  many  great  vassals,  it  is  so  very 
confined  in  its  own  territory,  that  it  has  a  domain  hardly  sufficient  for  a 
walk,  to  give  it  an  airing.  To  enable  it  to  go  a  little  into  the  world,  it 
is  obliged  to  take  assistance  from  the  prepositions.  Mr.  Ewing  himself 
cannot  send  it  abroad  without  escorting  it  with  up  or  down,  backwards 
or  forivards,  in  or  into,  off  or  upon,  &c.  A  word  so  limited  in  its  own 
territories  is  ill  fitted  to  become,  as  liege  lord,  proprietor  of  a  great  part 
of  the  language, — nay,  of  every  language ;  for  Mr.  Swing's  chemistry 
must  extract  the  same  thought  from  all  languages.  The  author,  indeed, 
while  he  declares  that  each  of  the  vassals  is  independent  of  all  the  rest, 
and  holds  immediately  of  the  liege  lord,  inconsistently  gives  it  a  process 
from  the  particular  sound  originally  denoted  by  it,  to  f*  the  noise  caused 
by  the  agency  of  body  in  motion  upon  body,  and  that  in  any  direction 
whatever."  Here  we  have  a  process  that  by  gradually  dropping  particu- 
larities, and  encroaching  on  territories  not  originally  included  in  its 
kingdom,  gives  it  a  generic  meaning.  Here  every  step  in  the  process  is 
connected  with  that  which  precedes  and  depends  on  it.  But  let  us  look 
at  the  generic  meaning  which  we  have  found  by  this  process.  It  is  so 
generic,  as  to  disclaim  all  kindred  with  pop,  according  to  the  use  of  that 
word  in  the  English  language.  Mr.  Ewing's  definition  assigns  this  word 
to  express  "  the  noise  caused  by  the  agency  of  body  in  motion  upon 
body."  Now,  has  pop  actually  so  generic  a  meaning?  If  so,  we  may 
speak  of  the  popping  of  a  cart,  when  we  mean  to  express  the  creaking  of 
its  wheels ;  for  this  is  "  noise  caused  by  the  agency  of  body  in  motion 
upon  body."  In  short,  every  noise  from  motion  may  be  called  popping. 
But  with  all  the  impudence  of  this  little  playful  word,  it  has  never  had 
the  boldness  to  pop  itself  into  such  a  province. 

Again,  if  bapto  signifies  primarily  to  pop,  and  if  pop  signifies  primarily 
to  make  "  a  small  smart  quick  sound,"  and  if  all  the  various  meanings  of 
bapto  hold  of  it  in  this  signification,  then  they  must  all  be  reducible  to 
the  primary  signification,  namely,  "  a  small  smart  quick  sound,"  without 
any  relation  to  one  another.  The  signification  to  dye  must  be  referred 
immediately  to  this  particular  sound,  and  not  to  the  accidental  bruising 
of  fruits.  Mr.  Ewing  inconsistently  makes  the  various  meanings  hold  of 
pop  in  its  generic  meaning,  acquired  by  process,  instead  of  its  primary, 
particular  motion.  Nay,  he  absurdly  makes  the  various  meanings  of 
bapto  hold  of  the  English  pop,  and  that  in  a  meaning  far  removed  from 
its  primary  meaning.  No  matter  that  it  was  as  true  that  pop  had  the 
generic  meaning  acquired  by  process  from  a  particular  one,  as  it  is 
manifestly  false ;  this  would  say  nothing  to  the  processes  of  bapto.  Instead 


94  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

of  tracing  the  progress  of  pop  from  "  a  small  smart  quick  sound,"  to 
a  "  sound  caused  by  the  motion  of  body  in  motion  on  body,"  let  Mr. 
Ewing  trace  the  progress  of  bapto  itself.  It  is  with  this  the  controversy 
is  concerned,  and  not  with  the  mutations  in  the  meaning  of  an  English 
word.  Let  him  show  such  a  primary  meaning  in  bapto,  and  then  let 
him  trace  it  through  all  the  rivulets  derived  from  the  fountain.  Can 
anything  be  more  obvious,  than  that  if  bapto  primarily  signifies  to  pop, 
and  if  pop  primarily  signifies  to  make  a  small  smart  quick  sound,  bapto 
cannot  be  admitted  as  proprietor  of  any  other  territory,  till  it  is  proved 
by  use  to  possess  it?  Is  the  harmony  between  bapto  and  pop  like  that 
of  the  monads  of  the  soul  and  body,  according  to  the  system  of  Leibnitz, 
that  the  one  must  necessarily  accompany  the  other  in  all  its  most 
fantastic  movements?  Can  anything  be  more  absurd,  than  to  squeeze 
pop  out  of  bapto,  on  the  authority  of  sound  and  primary  acceptation,  yet 
in  the  theory  founded  on  this,  to  reason  not  from  the  primary  meaning 
of  pop,  but  from  a  meaning  acquired  by  process?  Can  anything  be 
more  absurd,  than  to  pretend  to  determine  the  different  meanings  of  a 
Greek  word,  by  the  mutations  of  meaning  in  the  English  word  derived 
from  it? 

9.  If  pop  originally  denoted  "  a  small  smart  quick  sound,"  as  is  very 
likely,  then  there  is  no  reason  to  extract  pop  out  of  bapto,  for  bapto  never 
denotes  such  a  sound, — nor  any  sound.  Mr.  Ewing  himself  does  not 
pretend  to  allege  one  example  in  which  bapto  has  the  meaning  which 
pop  originally  implied.  On  the  authority,  then,  of  the  coincidence  of 
primary  meaning,  no  relation  can  be  found  between  them. 

10.  The  construction  of  the  words  in  connexion  with  bapto,  in  many 
of  its  occurrences,  contradicts  this  theory.  Mr.  Ewing  says,  "  a  person 
or  thing  may  be  either  popped  into  water,  or  may  have  water  popped 
upon  or  into  him."  Very  true,  but  the  same  syntax  will  not  pop  him 
into  water,  that  will  pop  water  upon  or  into  him.  According  to  Mr. 
Ewing,  to  pop  into  water  is  to  dip.  If  so,  the  examples  of  dipping,  as 
denoted  by  this  phrase,  are  innumerable.  Let  any  person  examine  the 
number  which  I  have  produced.  But  can  Mr.  Ewing  produce  out  of  all 
Greek  literature,  a  single  example  of  the  phrase  popping  water  upon  a 
person  or  thing,  when  the  verb  is  bapto  ?  Baptizing  water  upon  a  person 
or  thing,  is  a  phrase  that  never  occurs.  This  would  be  the  baptism  of 
the  water,  not  of  the  person.  To  pop  umterupon  a  man,  in  Greek,  would 
be  baptein  udor  ep  anthropon,  if  baptcin  is  the  Greek  word  for  pop : 
but  such  a  phraseology  is  not  to  be  found  in  all  the  Greek  language. 

11.  The  many  examples  in  which  baptizo  is  applied  to  great,  serious, 
and  terrific  objects,  contradict  this  theory.  Mr.  Ewing,  indeed,  has 
foreseen  this  storm ;  and  to  prevent  his  theory  from  being  overwhelmed 
by  it,  has  invented  a  groundless  distinction  between  what  he  calls  the 
proper  and  lax  sense  of  the  word.  "  It  is  a  word,"  he  says,  "  which 
properly  denotes  operations  on  a  small  scale,  and  of  a  gentle  nature  :  it  is 
in  a  secondary  sense  that  it  comes  to  be  applied  to  the  vast  and  the  ter- 
rible." But  can  it  apply  to  the  vast  and  the  terrible,  if  it  does  not  either 
include  the  vast  and  the  terrible  in  its  primary  meaning ;  or,  by  forsak- 
ing its  primary  meaning,  has  it,  by  philosophical  procedure,  advanced  to 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  95 

new  territories  ?  Words  often  advance  to  meanings  very  distant  from 
their  roots ;  but  when  they  do  so,  they  give  up  their  first  acceptation, 
and  take  the  new  meaning  as  their  proper  acceptation.  Candlestick, 
for  instance,  at  first  denoted  a  utensil  of  wood;  it  now  denotes  the 
utensil,  without  respect  to  the  material  of  which  it  is  composed :  but  it 
has  forsaken  its  ancient  meaning  altogether.  It  cannot  be  said  that  it 
properly  signifies  an  implement  made  of  wood,  for  holding  a  candle ; 
and  in  a  secondary  sense,  the  same  utensil  of  any  materials.  It  now 
as  properly  signifies  the  utensil  when  it  is  made  of  metal,  as  when  it  is 
made  of  wood;  of  gold,  as  when  it  is  made  of  an  osier. 

In  this  every  thing  is  natural,  and  the  philosophy  of  the  progress 
is  intelligible  to  the  child:  but  let  Mr.  Ewing  point  out  any  philoso- 
phical principle  that  would  lead  baptizo  from  such  a  primary  sense 
as  he  contends  for,  to  the  secondary  sense  which  he  here  assigns.  Is 
there  any  principle  to  conduct  the  operation  in  extending  the  word 
pop-gun  to  signify  a  cannon  1  He  does  not  pretend  that  this  process 
has  been  verified  in  the  term  pop.  To  employ  pop  in  this  way,  would 
be  ludicrous.  The  same  must  be  the  case  with  bapto,  if  it  signifies 
to  pop. 

But  if  there  were  any  principle  to  lead  to  this  process,  when  it  had 
taken  place,  the  first  meaning  must  be  given  up ;  for  they  are  utterly 
irreconcilable.  Let  Mr.  Ewing  point  out  any  principle  in  the  human 
mind  that  would  naturally  conduct  this  process.  Let  him  point  out 
any  example  in  any  language,  in  which  a  word  at  the  same  period  of 
its  history  has  such  primary  and  secondary  meanings.  Can  anything 
be  more  extravagant  than  the  supposition,  that  this  word  properly 
denotes  operations  on  a  small  scale,  and,  as  a  secondary  meaning,  things 
of  a  vast  and  terrific  nature?  If  it  has  the  one  meaning  it  cannot  have 
the  other.  There  is  no  philosophy  in  this  distinction.  What  a  wild 
thought,  that  the  noise  of  a  pop-gun,  and  destruction  by  the  overwhelm- 
ing torrents  of  boiling  lava  from  the  crater  of  a  burning  mountain,  may 
be  expressed  by  the  same  word !  Mr.  Ewing,  indeed,  acknowledges  that 
it  is  not  usual  in  English  to  say,  "  he  popped  upon  me  with  an  over- 
whelming flood."  But  he  might  have  added,  that  this  could  not  be  said 
in  any  language,  employing  a  word  corresponding  to  pop.  This  word 
cannot  apply  to  such  things,  from  the  inconsistency  between  them  and 
the  ideas  which  it  denotes :  and  there  must  be  the  same  inconsistency 
with  respect  to  the  words  that  correspond  to  pop  in  all  languages. 

Mr.  Ewing  calls  this  secondary  sense,  "  a  figurative,  an  exaggerated 
rather  than  a  proper  and  natural  sense."  But  if  it  is  a  secondary  sense, 
it  is  not  a  figurative  sense,  for  a  secondary  sense  is  a  proper  sense ;  and 
a  figurative  acceptation  of  a  word  is  no  sense  of  the  word  at  all.  When 
a  word  is  used  hyperbolically,  it  still  retains  its  proper  sense,  and  from 
this  circumstance  the  figure  has  its  beauty.  When  the  Psalmist  repre- 
sents the  mountains  as  leaping,  the  word  leaping  still  retains  its  proper 
meaning,  but  the  motion  of  a  mountain  in  an  earthquake  is  elegantly 
figured  as  leaping.  The  word  leap  does  not.  here  come  by  exaggeration 
to  denote  the  motion  of  a  mountain  in  an  earthquake.  In  like  manner, 
when  a  wild  Irishman  says  that  he  was  killed  when  he  had  received  a 


96  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

severe  beating,  the  word  hill  is  not  diminished  in  its  meaning,  but  what 
is  not  hilling  is,  by  a  lively  imagination,  so  called  for  the  sake  of  energy. 
It  is  absurd  to  speak  of  the  exaggerated  or  diminished  meaning  of  a 
word.     The  exaggeration  or  the  diminution  is  not  in  the  words  at  all. 

I  have  already  pointed  out  the  true  distinction  between  BAPTO  and 
BAPTIZO.  The  former  signifies  to  dip,  the  latter  to  cause  to  dip.  Now 
these  significations  equally  apply  to  small  objects  and  to  great ;  but 
while  the  latter  may  be  applied  to  the  smallest  object,  it  is  peculiarly 
fitted  to  denote  the  immersion  of  objects  greater  than  can  be  lifted  in 
the  hand.  Accordingly,  we  find  that  baptizo,  while  it  is  sometimes  applied 
to  the  smallest  objects,  is  much  more  usually  than  bapto  applied  to  large 
objects.  It  more  exactly  applies  to  the  immersion  in  baptism,  because 
the  baptized  person  is  not  taken  up  by  the  baptizer,  but  caused  to  sink 
into  the  water  by  the  force  impressed.  It  is  baptizo,  also,  as  any  one 
may  see  by  a  look  at  the  examples  which  I  have  quoted,  that  is  applied 
to  the  sinking  of  ships,  and  the  destruction  of  things  not  lifted  out  of  the 
water.  This  is  a  distinction  philosophical,  intelligible,  useful,  and 
agreeable  to  fact.  Mr.  Ewing's  distinction  has  nothing  to  recommend  it 
but  the  necessity  of  his  theory.  Josephus  speaks  as  literally  when  he 
designates  the  sinking  of  a  ship  by  the  word  baptizo,  as  when  he  speaks 
of  the  immersion  of  the  smallest  object. 

12.  Mr.  Ewing  mistakes  the  effect  that  prepositions  have  in  compo- 
sition with  the  verbs.  He  seems  to  suppose,  that  they  always  modify 
or  give  direction  to  the  action  of  the  verb  as  simply  as  the  English  pre- 
positions. But  a  slight  examination  of  this  subject  will  convince  any 
one  that  they  have  a  variety  of  power  unknown  to  our  language.  Let 
us  take  one  or  two  examples :  eita  thcrmous  artous  ex  oinou  melanos  hat 
elaiou  apobapton.  Here  it  is  obvious  apo  does  not  direct  its  force  in 
conjunction  with  the  verb,  upon  the  object  of  the  verb;  but  marks  the 
departure  of  the  object  from  the  thing  in  which  the  action  was  produced. 
The  latter  is  without  doubt  the  effect  of  the  preposition  after  the  verb, 
ex  oinou,  out  of  wine.  It  is  not  "  dip  the  loaves  into  the  wine,"  but  "  dip 
them  out  of  the  wine."  The  point  to  which  our  attention  is  here  called 
by  the  expression,  is  the  departure  of  the  object  out  of  the  thing  in 
which  the  action  of  the  verb  was  produced.  This  implies  that  it  was 
in  the  wine,  but  does  not  express  it.  Now,  the  preposition  in  composi- 
tion may  unite  with  the  preposition  after  the  verb,  as  is  frequently  the 
case,  when  the  same  preposition  that  is  used  in  composition  is  also  used 
after  the  verb,  as  cmbaptizo  eis  thalassan,  and  our  own  phrases,  the 
tyrant  was  expelled  out  of  the  hingdom, — he  infused  courage  into  the 
soldiers,  &c.  &c. 

Whatever  is  the  meaning  of  the  participle  in  the  above  example,  the 
preposition  in  composition  with  it  cannot  exert  its  influence  on  the  object 
of  the  verb.  We  could  not  say,  popping  from  the  loaves  out  of  the  wine. 
The  expression  is  on  the  same  principle  that  operates  in  the  phrase, 
"shall  dip  his  finger  from  the  oil,"  Lev.  xiv.  16;  and  "from  the  blood," 
Lev.  iv.  17. 

Eis  and  en  occur  very  frequently  in  composition  with  this  verb ;  but 
their  effect  is  quite  obvious :  apo  is  less  frequent  because  it  is  only  on 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  97 

the  above  principles  that  it  applies.  Epi  is  still  less  frequent.  It  does  not 
imply  that  the  baptizing  substance  was  put  upon  the  thing  baptized,  but 
that  the  thing  baptized  was  put  upon  the  baptizing  substance.  "  Dip- 
ping a  piece  of  fine  linen  into  moist  Eretrian  earth,"  &c.  Here  the  linen 
was  baptized  upon  the  earth,  and  not  the  earth  upon  the  linen. 

Now,  this  is  Mr.  Ewing's  favourite  compound  for  denoting  poptism. 
To  pop  upon  must  mean  to  pop  the  water  on  the  person.  But  let  the 
verb  be  translated  as  he  will,  it  cannot  comport  in  this  example  with 
this  view.  The  Eretrian  earth  was  not  to  be  popped  upon  the  linen,  for 
it  was  a  mass  of  moist  earth ;  and  it  is  not  said  that  the  linen  was  to  be 
baptized  upon  with  the  earth,  but  into  the  earth.  Now,  Mr.  Ewing  sup- 
poses that  when  the  verb  is  compounded  with  epi,  the  baptizing  substance 
is  preceded  by  with.  "  He  popped  upon  me  with  an  overwhelming 
flood."  But  this  is  not  the  syntax  in  any  of  the  examples  in  which  this 
compound  word  occurs.  It  is  not  baptize  with,  but  baptize  in  or  into. 
This  is  a  capital  mistake,  and  the  detection  of  it  leaves  him  without  aid 
from  his  favourite  compound.  To  baptize  upon,  in  the  construction  in 
which  it  always  stands,  is  as  inconsistent  with  popping,  as  into  would 
have  been.  Indeed,  into  is  in  this  example  expressly  used  before  the 
baptizing  substance.  If  the  linen  was  to  be  baptized  upon  moist  earth, 
it  was  also  to  be  baptized  into  the  earth. 

The  expression  in  Josephus  in  which  this  compound  is  used,  to  which 
Mr.  Ewing  seems  to  refer,  is  as  little  in  unison  with  his  doctrine  :  "  This, 
as  the  last  storm,  immersed  the  young  men,"  &,c.  Here  the  storm  is 
not  the  baptizing  substance,  but  the  baptizer,  and  it  did  not  pop  itself  upon 
them,  for  the  verb  is  in  the  active  voice.  If,  then,  it  signifies  to  pop,  the 
popper  must  pop  something  on  them.  What  is  it,  then,  that  the  storm 
pops  on  them  different  from  itself?  To  express  Mr.  Ewing's  meaning, 
the  syntax  must  be  quite  different.  Some  popper  must  "  pop  the  young 
men  with  a  storm,"  &c,  or  it  must  be,  "  the  young  men  were  popped 
upon  toith  a  storm."  But  instead  of  this  the  storm  itself  is  the  baptizer, 
and  as  their  baptism  was  their  destruction,  it  must  have  been  immersion. 
Epi,  then,  cannot  here  import,  as  Mr.  Ewing's  doctrine  supposes,  that  the 
baptizing  substance  was  popped  upon  the  baptized ;  for  the  baptizing 
substance  was  the  sea  in  which  they  perished,  and  the  storm  was  the 
baptizer  that  sunk  them.  Mr.  Ewing's  own  translation  of  the  passage 
cannot  give  him  relief.  "  This,  as  the  last  storm,  epibaptized  or  over- 
ichelmed  the  young  men,  already  weather-beaten."  Now  what  did  the 
storm  baptize  upon  them  ?  With  what  did  it  ovenohelm  them  ?  With 
itself,  Mr.  Ewing  may  say.  I  answer,  No.  The  verb  is  in  the  active 
voice,  but  to  express  this  meaning  would  require  the  middle.  If  the 
storm  popped  them,  it  must  have  popped  them  with  something  different 
from  itself.  Besides,  the  allusion  is  evidently  to  a  ship  sinking  in  the 
sea  by  a  storm.  The  sea  is  the  baptizing  substance,  the  storm  is  the 
baptizer,  and  the  effect  of  such  a  baptism  is  destruction.  Epi,  then,  is 
evidently  intended  to  mark  the  violence  of  the  pressure  of  the  storm  on 
the  ship,  as  the  force  of  the  agent  in  effecting  the  action  of  the  verb. 

Again,  if  cpibaptize  signifies  to  pop  upon,  how  is  it  that  it  here  imports 
to  overwhelm  ?     Can  any  two  ideas  be  more  inconsistent  than  that  of 

13 


98  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

popping  upon,  and  that  of  overwhelming?  Can  two  extremes  meet? 
How  does  overwhelm  hold  of  pop  1  I  have  already  shown  that  no  pro- 
cess can  account  for  two  meanings  so  discordant,  and  that  no  figure  will 
justify  it.  This  is  contrary  to  a  canon  as  clear  as  any  in  language, — 
That  which  designates  one  extreme,  cannot  at  the  same  time 
designate  the  other.  As  I  have  observed  in  another  place,  many 
words  may  apply  to  both  extremes,  but  this  can  never  happen  except  when 
they  designate  neither.  To  dip,  for  instance,  applies  to  an  immersed  world, 
and  it  applies  to  an  immersed  insect.  But  it  designates  neither.  How 
ludicrous  is  the  expression,  the  storm  popped  upon  the  young  men  ! 
Even  were  we  to  grant  for  a  moment,  that  pop  should  enlarge  its  signifi- 
cation so  as  to  apply  to  the  most  violent  storm,  still  it  would  express 
only  the  force  of  the  storm,  and  not  its  effect.  The  translation  would 
then  be,  "  the  storm  rushed  on  them  with  tremendous  violence ;"  but 
this  would  not  import  the  effect  of  the  storm,  as  issuing  in  their  destruc- 
tion. In  many  ways  they  might  escape  from  the  greatest  storm  ever 
known.  Jonah  was  even  cast  into  the  sea,  and  yet  escaped.  Even  when 
the  whistle  becomes  a  tempest,  it  will  not  serve  Mr.  Ewing. 

The  same  observations  will  apply  to  the  other  example  from  Josephus: 
"  That  he  would  baptize  or  sink  the  city."  How  is  it  that  Mr.  Ewing 
has  translated  this  as  if  the  verb  was  in  the  passive  voice,  and  as  if 
Josephus  himself  was  not  supposed  the  baptizer?  "  For  the  city,"  says 
Mr.  Ewing,  "  must  be  epibaptized  or  overwhelmed."  Do  not  the  people, 
in  their  expostulations  with  Josephus,  in  order  to  dissuade  him  from 
leaving  them,  tell  him,  that  if  he  should  depart,  he  would  himself  sink 
or  epibaptize  the  city  ?  His  desertion  of  the  city  would  be  the  means 
of  its  ruin.  He  is  then  represented  as  doing  the  thing  that  would  be 
the  consequence  of  his  departure. 

But  how  is  this,  as  Mr.  Ewing  says,  an  overwhelming  by  rushing  or 
pouring  upon  ?  Did  Josephus,  by  popping  off  from  the  city,  pop  upon  it 
with  such  violence  as  to  overwhelm  it  ?  This  surely  implies  the  mys- 
teries of  transubstantiation.  Josephus  popped  nothing  on  the  city  by 
leaving  it,  nor  did  he  rush  or  pour  on  it  with  violence  by  flying  from  it. 
Epi,  then,  in  this  compound,  can  afford  no  countenance  to  the  supposi- 
tion, that  in  baptism  the  water  is  popped  or  poured  upon  the  baptized 
person.  To  suit  the  example  to  this  purpose,  Josephus  must  have  been 
represented  as  pouring  the  baptizing  substance  on  the  city. 

Upon  the  whole,  Mr.  Ewing  labours  under  a  capital  mistake  with 
respect  to  the  effect  of  the  prepositions  prefixed  to  this  verb.  The 
Greek  prepositions  have  a  much  more  extensive  and  varied  power  in 
composition  than  ours  have,  in  such  compounds  as  pop  in,  pop  out,  &c. 
Epibaptize,  which  he  supposes  expressly  to  imply  that  the  water  is 
poured  on  the  baptized,  does  not  in  one  instance  occur  in  syntax  suitable 
to  his  interpretation,  even  although  the  meaning  of  the  verb  were 
doubtful. 

13.  In  this  theory  of  Mr.  Ewing,  we  have  the  strongest  evidence  that 
our  opponents  are  not  themselves  satisfied  with  any  mode  of  defence 
hitherto  devised.  We  have  Mr.  Ewing's  own  virtual  acknowlegment, 
that  the  ground  on  which  pouring  has  till  his  time  been  held  for  bap- 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  99 

tism,  is  not  firm.  Can  there  be  a  more  certain  sign  that  he  himself  was 
dissatisfied  with  the  usual  view  of  the  subject,  than  his  having  recourse 
to  so  extravagant  a  theory  ?  If  he  has  taken  to  sea  in  this  bark  of  bul- 
rushes, must  he  not  have  considered  the  ship  which  he  left  as  being  in 
the  very  act  of  sinking?  I  call  on  the  unlearned  Christian  to  consider 
this  circumstance.  What  must  be  the  necessities  of  a  cause  that  requires 
such  a  method  of  defence !  This  theory  is  not  only  unsound,  and  un- 
supported by  the  Greek  language,  but  it  is  ludicrous  in  the  extreme. 
Since  the  heavens  were  stretched  over  the  earth,  there  has  not  been  such 
a  chimerical  scheme  embodied  under  the  name  of  criticism.  The  thought 
that  the  ordinances  of  Christ  could  be  squeezed  out  of  the  radical  sounds 
contained  in  words,  or  that  the  actual  meaning  of  words  may  be  autho- 
ritatively determined  by  such  a  species  of  etymology,  is  frightfully  fana- 
tical. Sober  criticism  can  lend  no  ear  to  such  dreams.  What,  then, 
must  be  the  desperate  situation  of  that  cause  that  takes  aid  from  such  a 
theory  as  that  of  Mr.  Ewing  ! 

The  passages  which  Mr.  Ewing  brings  forward  in  support  of  his 
theory  are  already  mostly  considered.  I  shall,  therefore,  only  touch  on 
a  few  of  his  observations  on  them.  There  is  one  rule  of  interpretation 
which  Mr.  Ewing  prescribes  to  us,  at  which  I  am  beyond  measure  asto- 
nished. Though  he  does  not  formally  state  it  as  a  canon,  yet  he  reasons 
on  the  supposition,  that  we  are  obliged  to  find  an  exact  parallel  for  im- 
mersion, with  all  its  circumstances,  in  the  purifications  of  the  heathens 
or  of  the  Jews.  Having  quoted  the  passage  from  Herodotus,  which  is 
so  decisive  in  our  favour,  he  endeavours  to  lessen  its  value  in  the  follow- 
ing words :  "  After  all,"  says  he,  "  there  is  one  very  manifest  point  of 
difference.  The  person  who  adopts  this  summary  method  of  purifica- 
tion, performs  the  operation  for  himself.  The  immersion  of  one  person 
by  another,  for  any  purpose  except  that  of  medical  treatment,  or  that  of 
murder,  I  can  discover  in  no  writings  whatever,  sacred  or  profane." 
And  does  Mr.  Ewing  really  think  that  any  such  authority  is  necessary 
to  determine  the  meaning  of  this  word?  Must  we  seek  for  a  model  for 
Christian  baptism,  either  among  Jewish  or  heathen  rites?  I  care  not 
if  there  never  had  been  a  human  being  immersed  in  water  since  the 
creation :  if  the  word  denotes  immersion,  and  if  Christ  enjoins  it,  I  will 
contend  for  it  as  confidently  as  if  all  nations,  in  all  ages,  had  been  daily 
in  the  practice  of  baptizing  each  other.  Whether  I  am  to  immerse 
myself  in  baptism,  or  be  immersed  by  another,  I  am  to  learn  from  the 
Scripture  accounts  of  the  ordinance,  not  either  from  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  or  the  practice  of  nations.  The  demand  of  Mr.  Ewing  is  unreason- 
able beyond  anything  that  I  recollect  to  have  found  in  controversy.  If  it 
could  not  be  accounted  for  by  the  strength  of  prejudice,  it  would  indicate  a 
want  of  discernment  that  no  man  will  impute  to  Mr.  Ewing.  The  man  who 
demands,  in  order  to  the  proof  of  immersion  in  baptism,  that  a  complete 
model  of  the  ordinance  be  found  in  Jewish  or  heathen  purifications,  must 
either  labour  under  the  influence  of  the  strongest  bias,  or  be  strangely 
deficient  in  the  powers  of  discrimination.  "  For  any  purpose  except  that 
of  medical  treatment,  or  that  of  murder  !  !  !"  And  is  not  any  of  these  cases 
as  authoritative  as  an  immersion  for  purification  ?  Is  not  the  immersion 


100  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

of  a  man  for  medical  purposes,  as  much  an  immersion,  and  as  authori- 
tative to  show  the  meaning  of  the  word,  as  an  immersion  for  superstitious 
purposes?  Examples  are  useful  to  settle  the  meaning  of  the  word,  not 
as  a  model  for  the  ordinance.  The  dipping  of  the  flea's  foot  in  Aristo- 
phanes, is  as  authoritative  as  the  immersion  of  a  Pharisee  for  purification. 
But  what  heightens  the  extravagance  of  this  demand  is,  that  while 
Mr.  Ewing  calls  for  a  complete  model  for  Christian  immersion  in  the 
purifications  of  Jews  and  heathens,  he  is  so  easily  satisfied  with  evidence 
on  his  own  side  of  the  question,  that  he  has  found  popping  water  on 
the  turned  up  face  to  be  the  baptism  of  the  New  Testament.  Here  he 
has  the  eyes  of  a  lynx,  for  he  has  seen  what  I  believe  no  other  man  ever 
pretended  to  see  in  the  Scriptures. 

But  it  seems,  that  even  a  complete  model  in  heathen  purifications 
would  not  serve  us.  Nay,  if  we  have  been  condemned  for  want  of  a 
heathen  pattern  for  baptism,  we  are  also  condemned  for  having  it. 
"There  is  also,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  a  point,  not  of  difference, .but  of 
resemblance,  between  this  example  and  an  anti-psedobaptist's  baptism, 
which  seems  to  have  very  much  astonished  the  historian,  namely,  the 
person's  plunging  himself,  '  with  his  very  clothes  on.'  It  was  evidently 
regarded  as  a  singular  and  monstrous  sort  of  purification  by  this  heathen 
writer  ;  and  we  shall  meet  with  abundant  evidence  that  it  was  never  so 
seen  in  Israel."  Here  we  are  condemned  for  observing  baptism  according 
to  the  model,  as  we  were  before  condemned  for  coming  short  of  the  model. 
Surely  I  may  answer  such  reasoning  in  the  language  of  Christ:  "We 
have  piped  unto  you,  and  ye  have  not  danced ;  we  have  mourned  unto 
you,  and  ye  have  not  lamented."  As  long  as  the  mind  is  in  a  state  to 
make  such  objections,  it  would  not  yield  though  one  should  rise  from 
the  dead.  A  heathen  thought  purification  with  the  clothes  on,  singular 
and  monstrous.  Must  Christ's  ordinance  conform  to  heathen  notions  of 
purification  ?  But,  Mr.  Ewing,  how  can  you  assert  that  Herodotus 
regarded  this  as  monstrous  ?  There  is  no  such  thing  said,  nor  implied. 
The  historian  does  not  mention  the  circumstance  as  monstrous,  or  in  any 
degree  improper,  but  as  an  evidence  of  the  abhorrence  that  the  Egyptians 
have  for  swine,  and  the  deep  pollution  contracted  by  their  touch.  The 
thing  that  was  singular  and  strange  is,  that  the  person  touching  the 
swine  supposed  the  pollution  to  affect  his  very  garments,  or  that  it  was 
as  necessary  to  baptize  them  as  himself.  The  polluted  Egyptian  bap- 
tized himself,  with  his  very  clothes,  that  he  might  purify  his  clothes, 
which  he  considered  to  be  defiled  as  well  as  himself.  The  Christian  is 
baptized  with  his  clothes  on,  not  indeed  to  imitate  the  example  of  the 
Egyptian,  but  for  the  sake  of  decency.  Had  Christian  baptism  been 
like  Egyptian  baptism,  an  ordinance  in  which  every  believer  was  to 
baptize  himself,  there  would  have  been  no  need  to  baptize  with  the 
clothes  on.  The  thing,  then,  that  is  strange  and  singular  in  the  Egyptian 
baptism,  is  not  strange  in  Christian  baptism.  It  would  be  strange  if 
persons  bathing  alone  in  a  retired  place  should  encumber  themselves 
with  a  bathing  dress ;  but  it  would  not  be  strange  to  find  them  using  a 
bathing  dress  on  a  crowded  strand.  A  little  discrimination  under  the 
influence  of  candour  would  have  taken  away  all  monstrosity  from  this 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  101 

example.  There  is  nothing  in  the  historian  that  in  the  remotest  degree 
gives  ground  for  Mr.  Evving's  assertion.  Is  this  a  candid  or  a  Christian 
way  of  representing  evidence  ?  If  men  will  indulge  themselves  in  such 
liberties  with  the  documents  on  which  they  found  their  report  of  anti- 
quity, no  credit  could  be  given  to  history.  Mr.  Ewing  here  represents 
Herodotus  as  regarding  the  circumstance  as  monstrous,  without  the 
smallest  authority  from  his  words.  Is  not  this  bearing  false  witness  1 
The  intention,  I  am  convinced,  is  not  to  misrepresent  evidence.  Yet 
evidence  is  misrepresented,  where  nothing  but  bias  could  discover  the 
supposed  meaning.  Well  may  a  Roman  Catholic  see  all  the  doctrines 
of  popery  in  the  Scriptures,  when  Mr.  Ewing  can  find  the  circumstance 
of  bathing  with  the  clothes  on,  designated  as  monstrous  in  this  language 
of  Herodotus.  If,  in  all  the  passages  which  I  have  considered,  I  have 
made  one  such  misrepresentation,  let  me  be  put  to  shame.  I  may  mis- 
take the  meaning  of  my  author,  but  a  mistake  that  indicates  a  bias,  I 
hope  no  man  will  be  able  to  find  in  my  criticism.  I  would  let  baptism 
and  the  Bible  itself  sink,  rather  than  force  evidence.  What  I  demand 
from  my  antagonist,  I  will  grant  him  in  return.  I  will  not  lay  down  one 
law  for  him,  and  walk  by  another  myself.  I  will  do  all  in  my  power  to 
save  the  Israelitish  spies ;  but  if  this  cannot  be  done  without  a  falsehood, 
let  them  perish. 

The  same  uncandid  and  unreasonable  mode  of  reasoning  is  again 
resorted  to  in  the  following  language.  Formerly  he  had  complained 
that  the  examples  implying  immersion,  do  not  respect  cases  in  which  one 
person  baptized  another,  but  each  baptized  himself.  "  Here,"  he  says, 
"  it  must  be  confessed,  that  in  some  of  the  cases,  there  are  dippers  as 
well  as  dipped."  Now,  if  there  is,  in  any  instance,  the  model  he  requires, 
why  does  he  complain,  that  in  some  instances  it  is  not  to  be  found  1  Does 
he  suppose  that  every  instance  must  contain  the  full  model,  or  that  one 
instance  is  not  sufficient  for  the  purpose,  even  were  it  necessary  to  pro- 
duce such  a  model  from  heathenism  ?  If,  in  one  case,  he  finds  a  dipper, 
is  it  not  enough  to  show  that  the  word  may  be  applied  to  the  ordinance 
of  Christian  immersion  ?  But  whether  a  person  dips  himself,  or  is  dip- 
ped by  another,  has  no  more  to  do  with  the  meaning  of  this  word,  than 
the  name  of  the  baptized  person  has.  Nor  can  an  example  from  heathen 
or  Jewish  purification,  that  would  coincide  in  every  particular  with  the 
external  form  of  the  ordinance,  be  of  more  authority  as  a  model,  than 
an  example  of  plunging  a  pick-pocket  in  the  mire.  To  speak  in  the 
above  way,  then,  is  totally  to  misconceive  the  nature  of  the  evidence  on 
which  a  just  conclusion  can  be  founded. 

Mr.  Ewing  complains,  that  "  the  other  cases  also,  are  not  those  of 
voluntary  plunging,  but  of  fatal  sinking."  But  is  not  immersion 
immersion,  whether  the  immersed  person  rises  or  sinks?  We  want  no 
aid  from  these  examples  but  what  they  can  give,  what  they  cannot  refuse 
to  give,  and  what  our  opponents  admit  that  they  give.  The  examples  in 
which  the  word  applies  to  sinking,  prove  that  the  word  implies  dipping. 
This  is  all  we  want  from  them.  That  the  baptized  person  is  not  to  lie 
at  the  bottom,  but  to  rise  up  out  of  the  waters,  we  learn  not  from  the 
word,  but  from  the  accounts  of  the  ordinance.     We  wish  no  model  in 


102  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

heathenism,  as  an  authority  for  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  This  we 
have  in  the  Scriptures.  We  are  indebted  to  the  heathen  writers  only 
for  the  meaning  of  the  word.  It  is  altogether  astonishing  that  a  man 
like  Mr.  Ewing  can  indulge  in  such  trifling.  If  all  his  requirements 
were  necessary,  no  ordinance  of  Christ  could  be  proved.  But  happily 
his  requirements  are  only  for  his  opponents.  They  do  not  regulate  his 
own  conduct.  He  relaxes  from  his  rigour,  wherever  his  popping  scheme 
comes  to  the  trial.  If  one  instance  could  be  brought,  in  which  this  dis- 
puted word  necessarily  signifies  to  pour  or  sprinkle,  though  it  related  to 
a  person  sprinkling  himself,  what  would  he  say,  should  I  object  that  this 
was  no  authority  for  one  person  to  sprinkle  another  ?  Very  true,  he  would 
doubtless  say,  but  it  proves  that  the  word  signifies  to  sprinkle.  I  have 
other  ways  of  learning  whether  baptism  is  a  sprinkling  of  one's  self,  or 
a  sprinkling  of  one  by  another.  In  like  manner,  the  examples  of  invo- 
luntary immersion  prove  to  me  the  meaning  of  the  word.  From  Christ 
and  his  apostles  I  learn  that  Christian  immersion  is  neither  involuntary 
nor  fatal.     It  is  a  grievous  thing  to  be  obliged  to  notice  such  reasoning. 

Mr.  Ewing  exclaims,  "  Is  this  the  pattern  of  baptizers  and  baptized?" 
No  indeed,  Mr.  Ewing,  this  is  not  the  pattern,  and  I  never  heard  of  any 
who  made  this  a  model.  But  these  examples  are  authority  to  show  the 
meaning  of  the  word.  Had  Mr.  Ewing  produced  one  instance  in  which 
the  disputed  word  signifies  to  sprinkle  or  ponr,  and  that  instance  referred 
to  bespattering  with  filth,  what  would  he  say  were  we  to  exclaim,  "Is 
this  the  pattern  of  baptism  by.  sprinkling?"  Would  he  not  pounce 
upon  us  with  the  reply :  "  This  determines  the  meaning  of  the  word, 
which  is  all  any  examples  from  heathen  writers  can  do.  That  pure 
water  is  to  be  used  in  baptism,  we  learn  from  the  Scriptures."  And 
why  does  he  not  use  common  sense  in  his  objections  ? 

"  Shall  we  illustrate  the  office  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  of  the  apostles 
and  evangelists  of  Christ,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  by  the  work  of  providential 
destruction,  or  that  of  murderers  ?"  We  shall  determine  the  meaning 
of  the  word  by  such  examples.  Nothing  more  can  be  done  by  any 
examples  from  antiquity.  Nothing  more  do  we  want.  I  put  it  to  every 
candid  reader, — I  put  it  to  Mr.  Ewing  himself,  whether  he  would  make 
such  an  objection,  if  the  examples  were  in  his  favour.  Nay,  we  have 
the  answer  virtually  expressed  in  the  authority  which  he  gives  to  the 
example  of  heathen  and  Jewish  purifications.  While  he  complains  of 
us  for  establishing  the  meaning  of  the  word  by  documents  that  apply 
the  word  to  involuntary  and  fatal  immersion,  his  mode  of  reasoning  in 
other  places  gives  an  authority  to  heathen  models  of  purification  that 
they  do  not  possess. 

"  These  examples  imply,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  not  a  mere  dipping  and 
up  again,  an  immersion  immediately  followed  by  an  emersion ;  but  a  con- 
tinued and  permanent  immersion,  a  remaining  under  water."  Now,  is 
not  this  mode  of  reasoning  perverse  and  unjust  ?  If  some  examples  are 
found,  in  which  this  word  is  applied  to  the  dipping  of  things  taken 
immediately  up,  is  not  this  sufficient  to  establish  the  propriety  of  its 
application  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism?  Can  it  be  necessary  that  all 
the  examples  refer  to  things  taken  up?     Will  Mr.  Ewing  never  learn 


THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  103 

that  we  are  seeking,  from  these  examples,  not  an  authoritative  model 
for  baptism,  but  the  meaning  of  a  word?  If  the  disputed  word,  in 
some  instances,  applies  to  things  taken  immediately  up,  and  in  others 
to  thino-s  never  taken  up,  a  true  critic,  nay,  common  sense,  will  learn 
that  the  word  itself  can  designate  neither  taking  up  nor  lying  at  the 
bottom.  One  instance  in  which  the  word  applies  when  the  thing  is 
taken  up  after  dipping,  is  as  good  as  ten  thousand. 

But  though  some  examples  of  the  occurrence  of  this  word  imply  a 
permanent  immersion  or  destruction,  the  word  baptizo  never  expresses 
this.  Whether  the  thing  is  taken  up,  or  is  allowed  to  remain,  is  not 
expressed  by  the  word,  but  is  implied  by  the  circumstances.  The  word, 
without  one  exception,  signifies  simply  to  dip. 

In  the  following  extract,  the  reasoning  is  more  plausible.  The  author 
seems  to  think  that  it  is  demonstration.  However,  when  it  is  dissected, 
it  has  no  muscles.  "  Some  may  think,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  it  was  not 
necessary  to  use  a  word  directly  to  express  the  emersion,  because  if 
immersion  really  was  enjoined,  the  emersion  must  be  understood  to  follow 
of  course,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case.  This  is  a  perfectly  natural 
thought,  but  it  cannot  help  the  cause  of  anti-psedobaptists.  According 
to  their  views,  baptism  is  a  twofold  symbol,  representing  two  things  of 
distinct  and  equal  importance.  The  immersion  and  the  emersion  are 
both  of  them  parts  of  this  symbol ;  the  first  representing  the  death,  and 
the  second  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  Now,  if  this  be  the  case,  the  word 
baptizo  is  a  name  for  the  one  half  only  of  their  ordinance  of  baptism.  It 
entirely  fails  them  as  to  the  other  half  A  word  may  have  various 
meanings,  but  it  cannot  have  two  of  them  at  the  same  time.  If,  there- 
fore, this  word  pops  them  down,  it  certainly  cannot  give  any  warrant,  or 
suggest  any  literal  or  figurative  meaning,  for  their  popping  up  again." 
Now,  how  can  we  deliver  ourselves  out  of  this  tremendous  gulf?  Nothing 
can  be  more  easy.  Distinguish  the  things  that  are  different,  and  place 
every  thing  on  its  proper  evidence,  and  all  difficulty  vanishes.  The 
word  baptizo,  even  applied  to  baptism,  expresses  immersion  only.  Yet  I 
contend,  that  in  baptism  there  is  a  two-fold  symbol.  How  is  this  ?  I 
learn  the  meaning  of  the  word  from  its  use ;  and  I  learn  the  meaning  of 
the  ordinance,  not  from  the  word,  but  from  the  Scripture  explanation  of 
the  import  of  the  ordinance.  If  there  was  nothing  said  in  Scripture 
about  the  import  of  baptism,  I  should  learn  nothing  on  the  subject  from 
the  word  that  designates  it.  I  should  learn  as  little  of  its  being  a 
symbol  of  the  death  of  Christ,  as  of  his  resurrection.  I  learn  neither 
from  the  word ;  for  it  is  possible  that  this  word  might  have  been  used, 
without  teaching  anything  on  the  subject.  I  learn  both  from  the  Scrip- 
ture explanations  of  Christ's  institution. 

But  it  may  be  said,  if  the  word  signifies  immersion,  it  may  be  a 
symbol  of  Christ's  burial ;  but  it  is  not  fitted  to  be  such  a  symbol, 
unless  it  also  signifies  to  emerge. — Now,  as  far  as  depends  on  what  is 
actually  expressed  by  the  word,  I  grant  that  this  is  the  case.  But  as  in 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  the  emersion  is  as  necessary  as  the  immersion, 
there  is  nothing  to  prevent  the  institutor  to  make  the  emersion  sym- 
bolical  as  well  as  the  immersion.     If  the  institutor  had  not  made  it 


104  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

symbolical,  if  it  was  not  explained  as  pointing  to  Christ's  resurrection 
and  ours,  I  would  as  soon  anoint  with  oil  and  spittle,  as  deduce  it  from 
the  meaning  of  the  word,  even  though  the  word  had  expressed  both 
immersion  and  emersion.  The  ordinance  is  as  fit  to  represent  emersion  as 
immersion,  though  the  word  baptism  expresses  the  latter  only.  The 
symbol  consists  in  the  thing,  not  in  the  name.  There  is  no  necessity  that 
the  name  should  designate  every  thing  contained  in  the  ordinance.  But 
even  granting  that  this  is  necessary,  what  would  follow?  Not  that 
baptism  is  not  immersion,  but  that  baptism  is  an  emblem  of  burial  only. 
This  would  do  Mr.  Ewing  little  service.  If  we  can  once  persuade  him 
to  have  himself  popped  into  the  water,  it  is  not  likely  that  he  will  be  so 
obstinate  as  to  reject  the  half  of  the  edification  of  the  ordinance. 

Mr.  Ewing  says,  "  Now  if  this  be  the  case,  the  word  baptizo  is  a  name 
for  the  one  half  only  of  their  ordinance  of  baptism."  But  why  should 
the  name  of  any  ordinance  designate  every  thing  that  the  ordinance  is 
explained  by  the  institutor  as  containing?  This  is  not  necessary ;  nor 
do  Scripture  ordinances  at  all  recognise  the  authority  of  such  a  principle. 
Is  it  not  strange  that  Mr.  Ewing  should  have  forgotten  one  of  the  names 
of  the  Lord's  supper  which  is  liable  to  the  like  objection  ?  It  is  called 
the  breaking  of  bread;  yet  it  includes  the  drinking  of  wine.  Such  are 
the  effects  of  intemperate  zeal.,  It  requires,  in  one  instance,  what  it 
overlooks  in  another. 

Section  XIV. — On  the  Baptism  of  the  Spirit. — The  baptism  of  the 
Spirit  is  a  figurative  expression,  explicable  on  the  principle  of  a  reference 
to  immersion.  This  represents  the  abundance  of  the  gifts  and  influences 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  enlightening  and  sanctification  of  believers. 
That  which  is  immersed  in  a  liquid,  is  completely  subjected  to  its  influence 
and  imbued  with  its  virtues ;  so  to  be  immersed  in  the  Spirit,  represents 
the  subjection  of  soul,  body,  and  spirit,  to  his  influence.  The  whole 
man  is  sanctified.  It  is  objected  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  be  poured 
out,  and  therefore,  to  represent  the  pouring  of  the  Spirit,  baptism  must  be 
by  pouring.  This  is  the  grand  resource  of  our  opponents,  and  is  more 
specious  to  the  illiterate  than  anything  that  has  been  said.  A  very 
considerable  part  of  the  language  of  Scripture,  in  the  representation  of 
the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  is  founded  on  the  figure  of  pouring ;  and  readers 
who  have  no  discrimination,  or  who  are  under  the  influence  of  bias,  at 
once  conclude  that  this  pouring  is  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit.  This  argu- 
ment is  drawn  out  in  formidable  array  by  Mr.  Ewing ;  and  is  relied  on 
with  the  utmost  confidence  by  Dr.  Wardlaw.  But  it  is  nothing  but  a 
careless  confusion  of  things  entirely  distinct,  and  is  founded  on  an 
egregious  blunder,  as  the  reader  will  perceive  from  the  following 
observations. 

First,  The  word  in  its  literal  sense  must  guide  all  its  figurative  appli- 
cations. The  explanation  of  the  figure  must  conform  to  the  literal 
meaning,  but  the  literal  meaning  can  never  bend  to  the  figurative.  The 
latter,  indeed,  may  assist  us  in  ascertaining  the  former ;  but  when  the 
former  is  ascertained,  the  latter  must  be  explained  in  accordance  with  it. 
But  the  literal  meaning  of  this  word  is  ascertained  to  be  that  of  immersion. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  105 

by  a  strength  of  evidence,  and  a  multitude  of  examples,  that  cannot  be 
exceeded  with  respect  to  any  word  of  the  same  frequency  of  occurrence. 
This  is  a  fixed  point ;  and  in  the  examination  of  the  reference  in  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit,  nothing  can  be  admitted  inconsistent  with  this. 
The  baptism  of  the  Spirit  must  have  a  reference  to  immersion,  because 
baptism  is  immersion,  and  in  its  literal  sense  never  signifies  anything 
else.  When  we  come  to  the  examination  of  this  figure,  or  any  other  of 
the  same  word,  we  must  ground  on  this  ascertained  fact.  As  there  is 
not  one  instance  in  the  literal  use  of  the  word,  in  which  it  must  signify 
pouring,  or  anything  but  dipping,  the  pretensions  of  pouring,  as  the 
figurative  baptism,  do  not  deserve  even  a  hearing.  They  cannot  legiti- 
mately even  go  before  a  jury,  because  true  bills  are  not  found.  There 
is  no  ground  of  trial,  because  there  is  nothing  in  the  allegations  that  can 
at  all  excite  a  doubt.  Pouring  cannot  be  the  figurative  baptism,  because 
baptism  never  literally  denotes  pouring. 

Secondly,  This  opinion  is  founded  on  the  egregious  and  blasphemous 
error  which  teaches  that  God  is  material,  and  that  there  is  a  literal  pouring 
out  of  his  Spirit,  which  may  be  represented  by  the  pouring  of  water.  Our 
opponents  understand  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  to  be  a  literal  baptism,  and 
the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  to  be  a  literal  pouring  out  of  Him  who  is 
immaterial.  But  though  there  is  a  real  communication  of  the  Spirit,  there 
is  no  real  or  literal  baptism  of  the  Spirit.  Let  the  reference  in  the  baptism 
of  the  Spirit  be  what  it  may,  it  cannot  be  a  literal  baptism,  because  God  is 
not  material.  We  cannot  be  literally  either  dipped  into  God,  or  have  him 
poured  on  us.  Pouring,  then,  in  baptism,  even  if  baptism  were  pouring, 
could  not  represent  the  pouring  of  the  Spirit,  because  the  Spirit  is  not 
literally  poured.  Baptism,  whatever  be  the  mode,  cannot  represent 
either  the  manner  of  conveying  the  Spirit,  or  his  operations  in  the  soul. 
These  things  cannot  be  represented  by  natural  things.  There  is  no 
likeness  to  the  Spirit,  nor  to  the  mode  of  his  operations.  It  is  blasphemy 
to  attempt  a  representation.  It  would  be  as  easy  to  make  a  likeness  of 
God  creating  the  world,  and  attempt  to  represent  by  a  picture  the  Divine 
operations  in  the  formation  of  matter,  as  to  represent  by  symbols  the 
manner  of  the  communication  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  his  operations  on 
the  soul.  If  Christians  were  not  infatuated  with  the  desire  of  establishing 
a  favourite  system,  such  gross  conceptions  of  God  could  not  have  so  long 
escaped  detection.  This  error  is  as  dishonourable  to  God,  as  that  of  the 
Anthropomorphites.  It  degrades  the  Godhead,  by  representing  it  as  a 
material  substance. 

When  the  Spirit  is  said  to  be  poured,  it  is  a  figurative  expression,  to 
which  there  is  nothing  resemblant  in  the  manner  of  the  Divine  operations. 
What,  then,  it  may  be  asked,  is  the  resemblance?  Why  is  the  Spirit 
said  to  be  poured,  if  the  pouring  of  water  does  not  resemble  it  ?  The 
foundation  of  the  figure  is  the  very  reverse  of  what  is  supposed.  The 
Spirit  is  said  to  be  poured  out,  not  because  there  is  any  actual  pouring, 
which  is  represented  by  pouring  out  water  in  baptism,  but  from  the 
resemblance  between  the  effects  of  the  influences  of  the  Spirit  and  those  of 
water.  Between  the  Spirit  itself  and  water  there  is  no  resemblance, 
more  than  between  an  eye  or  a  circle  and  the  Divine  nature.     Nor  is 

14 


106  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

there  any  resemblance  between  the  mode  of  the  operations  of  the  Spirit, 
and  that  of  the  influences  of  water.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  be  poured, 
because  his  influences  or  effects  are  like  those  of  water,  and  because  he 
is  supposed  to  dwell  above.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  represented  as  poured 
out,  on  the  same  principle  on  which  God  is  said  to  have  come  down  from 
heaven,  or  to  look  down  from  heaven,  or  to  have  hands  and  arms.  It 
is  in  accommodation  to  our  ways  of  thinking  and  speaking,  not  as 
expressive  of  reality.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  figured  as  water,  not  to  repre- 
sent any  likeness  in  him  to  water,  just  as  God  is  figured  as  a  man.  If 
the  Anthropomorphites  blasphemously  perverted  this  language  to  degrade 
God,  as  supposing  that  it  teaches  that  he  has  actually  the  human  form, 
it  is  no  less  a  blasphemous  perversion  of  the  language  in  question,  to 
suppose  that  it  imports  a  real  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit.  The  Holy  Spirit 
is  said  also  to  be  as  deio.  Does  this  imply  that  there  is  a  likeness  to 
the  falling  of  dew  and  the  manner  of  the  communication  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  ?  Our  Lord  represents  the  Spirit  as  a  well,  the  waters  of  which 
spring  up,  John  iv.  14.  Is  there  also  a  likeness  in  the  manner  of  the 
communication  of  the  Spirit  to  water  rising  up  out  of  the  ground,  as  well 
as  to  water  poured  out  from  above  ?  The  Holy  Spirit  is  also  represented 
as  a  river  whose  streams  make  glad  the  city  of  God.  Is  there  also  a 
likeness  between  his  operations  and  the  running  of  water  ?  In  all  these 
figures,  the  Spirit  is  represented  in  accommodation  to  natural  things,  and 
natural  things  are  not  accommodated  to  it.  The  effects  of  the  one  resemble 
the  effects  of  the  other ;  but  as  to  manner,  there  is  no  likeness.  A  particular 
manner  is  given  to  the  operations  of  the  Spirit,  to  suit  the  manner  of  the 
communication  of  the  natural  object.  Therefore  it  is  that  the  Spirit  has  as- 
cribed to  him  all  the  various  modes  mentioned  above.  The  Spirit,  in  every 
figure,  takes  the  manner  of  the  resembling  object,  but  the  resembling  object 
never  takes  the  manner  of  the  Spirit,  because  nothing  is  known  of  his  man- 
ner. Of  this  there  must  not  be — cannot  be  any  likeness.  If  the  manner  of 
the  communication  of  the  Spirit  could  be  represented,  one  only  of  these 
modes  must  be  employed.  If  his  manner  ispouring,  it  cannot  be  like  dew, 
nor  like  rain,  nor  like  a  river,  nor  like  a  spring-well.  But  if  the  likeness 
be  merely  between  the  effects  of  the  Spirit  and  the  effects  of  water,  then  the 
Spirit  may  be  represented  as  dew,  or  rain,  or  a  river,  or  a  spring-well, 
just  as  the  water  is  supposed  to  be  applied.  It  is  absurd  to  suppose  an 
ordinance  to  be  appointed  to  represent  the  mode  of  the  Spirit's  com- 
munication ;  and  as  it  is  spoken  of  under  all  these  modes,  each  of  them 
might  claim  an  ordinance  as  well  as  pouring.  Baptism  might  as  well 
represent  water  rising  out  of  the  earth,  distilling  in  dew,  running  in  a 
stream,  ox  falling  in  rain,  as  pouring  out  of  a  cup.  Each  of  these  repre- 
sents the  blessings  of  the  Spirit,  by  conforming  the  language  about  the 
operations  of  the  Spirit  to  a  particular  state  of  the  water;  none  of  them 
represent  the  mode  of  these  operations.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  fall;  why, 
then,  should  not  baptism  represent  falling?  The  Holy  Spirit  is  repre- 
sented as  wind ;  why,  then,  is  there  no  blotoing  in  baptism  ?  The  Holy 
Spirit  is  represented  by  fire;  why  is  there  no  fire  used  in  this  ordinance? 
The  gift  of  the  Spirit  was  represented  by  the  breathing  of  Jesus  on  the 
apostles ;  why  is  there  no  breathing  in  baptism  ?     The  influences  of  the 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  107 

Spirit  are  represented  by  oil;  why  is  not  oil  used  in  baptism?  The 
reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  represented  by  drinking  water ;  why  is 
there  no  drinking  in  this  ordinance  1 

In  like  manner,  curses  are  represented  as  poured  out  by  God  on  his 
enemies,  or  put  into  their  hands  as  a  cup  to  be  drunk.  Drinking  is 
equally  an  emblem  of  blessings  and  curses,  because  it  is  the  one  or  the 
other  according  to  the  qualities  of  the  liquid.  In  the  judgments  of  God 
on  the  wicked,  there  is  no  likeness  to  the  manner  of  the  Divine  opera- 
tions. Why,  then,  should  such  a  likeness  be  supposed  when  pouring 
respects  blessings  1  Baptism,  then,  cannot  be  either  pouring  or  dipping, 
for  the  sake  of  representing  the  manner  of  the  conveyance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  for  there  is  no  such  likeness.  Pouring  of  the  Spirit  is  a  phrase 
which  is  itself  a  figure,  not  a  reality  to  be  represented  by  a  figure. 
Baptism  is  a  figure,  not  of  the  mode  of  any  Divine  operation,  to  which 
there  can  be  no  likeness,  but  of  the  buried  and  resurrection  of  Christ, 
which  may  be  represented  by  natural  things,  because  it  respects  the 
objects  of  sense.  In  this  reference  it  has  a  real  application,  a  true  like- 
ness, and  the  most  important  use.  Of  the  immersion  of  the  Spirit,  I 
will  say  the  same  as  of  the  pouring  of  the  Spirit,  that  it  cannot  represent 
the  operations  of  the  Spirit,  or  the  mode  of  his  conveyance.  Believers 
are  said  to  be  immersed  into  the  Spirit,  not  because  there  is  anything 
like  immersion  in  the  manner  of  the  reception  of  the  Spirit,  but  from 
the  resemblance  between  an  object  immersed  in  a  fluid,  and  the  sancti- 
fication  of  all  the  members  of  the  body,  and  faculties  of  the  soul.  The 
common  way  in  which  the  pouring  of  the  Spirit  has  been  explained,  is 
inconsistent  both  with  sound  taste  and  with  sound  theology.  It  mistakes 
the  nature  of  figurative  language,  and  converts  the  Godhead  into  matter. 

But  though  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  figurative  baptism,  to 
which  there  cannot  be  a  likeness  in  literal  baptism ;  yet  as  respects  the 
transaction  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  there  was  a  real  baptism  in  the 
emblems  of  the  Spirit.  The  disciples  were  immersed  into  the  Holy 
Spirit  by  the  abundance  of  his  gifts ;  but  they  were  literally  covered 
with  the  appearance  of  wind  and  fire.  The  place  where  they  met  was 
filled  with  the  sound  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  cloven  tongues  as  of 
fire  sat  over  them.  They  were  then  completely  covered  by  the  emblems 
of  the  Spirit.  Now,  though  there  was  no  dipping  of  them,  yet  as  they 
were  completely  surrounded  by  the  wind  and  fire,  by  the  catachrestic 
mode  of  speech  which  I  before  explained,  they  are  said  to  be  immersed. 
This  is  a  process  exemplified  with  respect  to  innumerable  words,  and  the 
principle  is  quite  obvious,  as  well  as  of  daily  application.  The  shepherd, 
when  his  sheep  are  covered  with  snow  in  a  glen,  says  that  they  are 
buried  in  the  snow.  When  a  house  falls  upon  the  inhabitants,  we  say 
that  they  are  buried  in  its  ruins.  A  general  will  threaten  to  bury  the 
inhabitants  in  the  ruins  of  their  city.  The  word  bury  with  us,  strictly 
conveys  the  notion  of  digging  into  the  earth,  as  well  as  of  covering  over 
the  dead.  Yet  here  it  is  extended  to  a  case  in  which  the  former  does 
not  take  place.  Burial  usually  is  performed  by  both  operations,  but 
here  the  thing  is  performed  by  one ;  and  therefore  the  word  that  desig- 
nates both,  is  elegantly  assigned  to  that  which  serves  the  purpose  of 


108  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

both.  Just  so  with  respect  to  being  covered  with  a  fluid.  Immersion 
denotes  that  the  thing  immersed  is  put  into  the  immersing  substance ;  yet 
when  the  same  effect  is  produced  without  the  manner  of  the  operation, 
the  usual  name  of  the  operation  is  catachrestically  given  to  the  result. 
Virgil's  expression,  "  Pocula  sunt  fontes  liquidi,"  Georg.  iii.  p.  529,  is  an 
exact  parallel.  "  The  liquid  fountains  are  their  cups,"  &x.  Now,  foun- 
tains are  not  cups,  more  than  the  thing  referred  to  is  immersion,  yet  they 
are  called  cups,  because  in  the  instance  referred  to  they  serve  the  pur- 
pose of  cups.  This  poet  supplies  innumerable  examples  of  the  operation 
of  the  principle  here  illustrated. 

Let  it  not  be  supposed  that  the  principle  which  I  have  now  illustrated 
is  at  all  akin  to  that  unfounded  fancy  of  Mr.  Ewing,  with  respect  to  the 
supposed  exaggerated  meaning  of  baptizo.  Mr.  Ewing  in  this  gives  two 
meanings  to  a  word,  at  variance  with  each  other,  and  while  he  calls  it 
figurative,  he  makes  it  literal ;  and  agreeably  to  his  doctrine,  it  must,  in 
the  hyperbolical  meaning,  hold  directly,  and  immediately,  and  independ- 
ently, of  the  primary  meaning.  The  principle  which  I  have  explained 
is  not  of  this  paradoxical  kind.  I  give  but  the  one  meaning  to  the  word  ; 
and,  even  when  there  is  no  literal  immersion,  I  maintain  that  the  word 
never  drops  its  characteristic  meaning.  Indeed,  the  beauty  of  the  figure 
is  that  the  word  suggests  its  own  peculiar  meaning,  even  when  it  does 
not  literally  apply.  It  professedly  calls  a  thing  by  a  name,  which  lite- 
rally does  not  in  all  respects  belong  to  it,  to  gratify  the  imagination. 
Why  does  Virgil  call  fountains  by  the  name  of  cups  ?  Not  because  they 
were  really  cups,  or  because  cup  signifies  fountain  literally,  but  because 
the  human  mind  by  its  constitution  is  delighted  in  certain  circumstances 
by  viewing  a  thing  as  being  what  it  is  not,  but  which  in  some  respects 
it  resembles.  The  process  for  which  I  contend,  I  can  vindicate  by  the 
soundest  philosophy, — I  can  trace  to  its  origin  in  the  human  mind, — 
I  can  illustrate  by  parallels  without  number.  Mr.  Ewing  has  not 
attempted  to  illustrate  his  figure,  nor  is  it  in  his  power  to  show  its 
foundation  in  the  human  mind,  or  to  sanction  it  by  corresponding 
examples. 

Mr.  Booth,  with  a  truly  critical  judgment  and  correct  taste,  illustrates 
this  mode  of  speech  by  alluding  to  the  electrical  bath,  "so  called,"  says 
the  writer  whom  he  quotes,  "  because  it  surrounds  the  patient  with  an 
atmosphere  of  electrical  fluid,  in  which  he  is  plunged."  Here  the  writer 
to  whom  he  refers,  scruples  not  to  say  that  the  patient  is  plunged  into 
the  fluid  which  is  brought  around  him.  Indeed,  the  very  term  electrical 
bath  is  an  exemplification  of  the  operation  of  the  same  principle.  Bath 
properly  refers  to  a  vessel  of  water  in  which  persons  are  bathed :  but  by 
a  catachresis,  this  term  is  given  to  a  vessel  filled  with  a  fluid,  which  fluid 
is  not  for  the  purpose  of  bathing. 

Thirdly,  There  is  another  grand  fallacy  in  this  argument.  It  con- 
founds things  that  are  different.  Water  is  poured  out  into  a  vessel  in  order 
to  have  things  put  into  it.  But  the  pouring  out  of  the  water,  and  the 
application  of  the  water  so  poured  out,  are  different  things.  Water  is 
poured  into  a  bath  in  order  to  immerse  the  feet  or  the  body,  but  the 
immersion  is  not  the  pouring.     Now,  our  opponents  confound  these  two 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  109 

things.  Because  the  Spirit  is  said  to  be  poured  out  in  order  to  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit,  they  groundlessly  conclude  that  the  pouring  is  the 
baptism.  A  foreigner  might  as  well  contend  that,  when  it  is  said  in  the 
English  language,  "  Water  was  poured  into  a  bath,  and  they  immersed 
themselves,"  it  is  implied  that  pouring  and  immersing  are  the  same  thing. 

'Then  taking  the  resplendent  vase 


Allotted  always  to  that  use,  she  first 
Infused  cold  water  largely,  then  the  warm. 

She,  then,  approaching,  ministered  the  bath 
To  her  own  king." — Cowper,  Odys.  xix. 

The  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  is  as  different  a  figure  from  the  baptism 
of  the  Spirit,  as  the  infusion  of  the  water  into  the  bath  is  different  from 
the  application  of  the  water  to  the  object  in  the  bath. 

Now,  let  us  apply  these  observations  to  Mr.  Ewing's  reasoning.  Dis- 
section is  not  a  pleasant  work,  either  to  the  operator  or  the  spectators  ; 
but  it  is  impossible  to  make  an  anatomist  without  it.  General  observa- 
tions must  be  applied  to  the  subject  in  detail,  that  all  may  thoroughly 
understand  their  application,  and  perceive  their  justness.  It  is  tedious, 
but  the  business  cannot  be  effectually  done  without  the  knife. 

Speaking  of  water,  air,  and  fire,  Mr.  Ewing  says.  "  which  are  all 
considered  in  Scripture  as  elements  of  baptism."  Air  and  fire  were 
elements  of  the  baptism  that  took  place  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  but 
they  are  not  elements  in  the  standing  ordinance  of  Christ.  In  the  bap- 
tism of  the  day  of  Pentecost  there  was  no  water  at  all.  They  who  were 
baptized  on  that  day  in  wind  and  fire,  had  been  baptized  before.  This 
was  not  the  ordinance  of  Christian  baptism,  nor  an  ordinance  at  all. 
Christ  himself  was  the  administrator,  and  it  is  called  baptism  only  in  an 
allusive  sense.  If  it  was  baptism  as  an  ordinance,  it  would  prove,  that 
after  the  baptism  of  water,  there  ought  to  be  another  baptism  into  wind 
and  fire. 

"  And  in  this  connexion,"  continues  Mr.  Ewing,  "  these  elements  are 
uniformly  represented  as  poured,  inspired,  and  made  to  fall  from  above" 
Very  true,  but  is  this  pouring,  inspiring ,  falling  from  above,  called  bap- 
tism 1     Never — never. 

Mr.  Ewing  asserts,  that  these  emblems  of  the  work  of  the  Spirit  are 
an  allusion  to  the  creation  of  man.  But  how  does  he  find  the  fire  in 
that  work?  Why,  was  there  not  "  the  fire  of  life  ?"  But  the  fire  of 
life  is  no  element.  This  is  only  a  figurative  expression.  It  is  mere 
fanaticism  to  take  such  mysteries  out  of  the  Scriptures.  Is  it  not  strange 
that  Mr.  Ewing  will  allow  himself  to  indulge  so  wild  a  fancy  in  deriving 
emblematical  instruction  from  his  own  creations,  and  that  he  so  obsti- 
nately refuses  to  take  that  edification  from  the  import  of  baptism,  which 
is  obviously  contained  in  the  apostolical  explanations  of  the  ordinance  ? 

He  says  that  baptism  "  consists  in  a  representation  of  all  the  elements 
employed  in  our  first  creation."  I  have  remarked  that  there  was  no  fire 
employed  in  our  first  creation ;  and  Christian  baptism  has  no  represen- 
tation either  of  fire  or  air.  Nor  has  the  water  of  baptism  any  allusion 
to  the  water  that  moistened  the  clay  in  the  creation  of  man.     These 


110  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

mysteries  are  akin  to  those  that  the  Romish  church  so  piously  finds  in 
the  oil  and  spittle  used  in  baptism. 

He  says  that  the  promise  of  the  baptism  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  with 
fire  "  was  given  to  all  the  disciples."  Then  the  promise  has  not  been 
fulfilled.  Wind  and  fire  are  not  used  in  the  baptism  of  all  disciples. 
This  baptism  was  peculiar  to  the  day  of  Pentecost.  This  promise  can- 
not be  supposed  as  literally  applying  to  all  disciples.  He  says,  "  it 
belongs  to  them,  both  as  it  regards  gracious  influence,  and  as  it  regards 
miraculous  inspiration."  But  the  baptism  of  the  day  of  Pentecost  could 
not  respect  the  spiritual  birth,  else  there  would  be  two  baptisms  repre- 
senting the  same  thing.  The  persons  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost 
were  previously  baptized  into  water  as  being  born  again.  Jt  could  not 
respect  their  progressive  sanctification,  else  it  might  be  repeated  as  often 
as  the  Lord's  supper,  and  every  disciple  would  equally  need  the  wind 
and  fire  literally.  Nor  have  all  disciples  the  promise  of  miraculous  gifts. 
Miraculous  inspiration  he  understands  as  applying  to  all  believers  only 
in  the  sense  of  their  being  "  built  on  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and 
prophets ;  that  is,  their  faith  is  founded  on  the  authority  and  energy  of 
that  Spirit  by  which  the  apostles  and  prophets  were  inspired."  What 
an  abuse  of  words  is  this !  A  man  is  miraculously  inspired,  because  he 
believes  the  doctrine  of  an  inspired  person  ! ! ! 

Mr.  Ewing  derives  another  argument  for  pouring,  from  the  expression, 
u  born  from  above,"  John  iii.  But  from  above,  merely  designates  that 
God  is  the  author  of  this  birth,  without  respect  to  any  emblem  appointed 
to  represent  it,  though  baptism  is,  in  ver.  5,  referred  to  as  its  emblem. 
Bom  from  above,  is  perfectly  synonymous  with  born  of  God. 

As  little  can  be  built  on  the  emblem,  John  xx.  22.  The  breathing  on 
the  disciples  was  not  a  baptism,  nor  is  it  called  a  baptism. 

Mr.  Ewing  says,  that  "  the  mode  of  the  baptism,  Acts  i.  5,  is  explained 
ver.  8."  But  ver.  8  says  nothing  of  the  mode  of  that  baptism  :  "  But 
ye  shall  receive  power,  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come  upon  you." 
The  coming  is  not  the  baptism.  The  influence  of  the  Spirit  when  come, 
not  the  coming  of  the  Spirit,  is  the  baptism. 

The  author  observes,  with  respect  to  Acts  ii.  2,  "  that  •  the  sound'  of 
the  wind  was  heard  descending  from  heaven,  and  filling  the  house." 
Yes — but  the  descending  is  not  the  baptism.  The  wind  descended  to  fill 
the  house,  that  when  the  house  was  filled  with  the  wind,  the  disciples 
might  be  baptized  in  it.  Their  baptism  consisted  in  being  totally 
surrounded  with  the  wind,  not  in  the  manner  in  which  the  wind  came. 
The  water  must  be  brought  from  the  river  or  fountain,  to  fill  the  vessel 
for  immersion.  Does  this  say  that  the  conveyance  of  the  water  is  bap- 
tism? 

Mr.  Ewing  says,  that  "  distributed  flames  of  fire  appeared  like 
tongues,  and  sat  down  upon  every  one  of  them."  Though  this  transla- 
tion is  warranted  by  the  learned  Bishop  Pearce,  it  is  by  no  means  justi- 
fiable. The  common  version  is  perfectly  exact.  It  is  not  fire  cloven, 
or  distributed  into  tongues,  but  cloven  tongues.  There  were  not  only 
many  tongues,  to  denote  many  languages;  but  the  tongues  were  cloven, 
to  denote  that  the  same  individual  could  speak  different  languages.   The 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  Ill 

fire  sat  down  upon  each  of  them.  The  baptism  did  not  consist,  as  Mr. 
Ewing  supposes,  in  the  sitting  down,  or  the  mode  of  the  coming  of  the 
flame,  but  in  their  being  under  it.  They  were  surrounded  by  the  wind, 
and  covered  by  the  fire  above.  They  were  therefore  buried  in  wind  and 
fire. 

It  is  quite  obvious,  indeed,  that  even  the  mode  in  which  the  house  is 
said  to  have  been  filled  with  the  wind  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  is  no 
more  pouring  than  it  is  dipping.  The  wind  is  not  said  to  be  poured 
into  the  house,  but  to  come  rushing  with  a  mighty  noise ;  or  the  sound 
that  filled  the  house,  was  like  the  sound  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind.  If 
literal  baptism  has  any  allusion  to  this,  the  mode  ought  to  be  that  of  a 
rushing  wind.  If  the  manner  of  the  coming  of  the  emblem  is  the  bap- 
tism, then  baptism  is  neither  pouring  nor  immersion,  but  rushing. 

But  even  if  the  Pentecost  baptism  were,  for  argument  sake,  allowed 
to  be  pouring,  this  would  not  relieve  Mr.  Ewing.  The  whole  house 
was  filled  with  the  sound  of  the  wind — the  emblem  of  the  Spirit.  This 
was  not  popping  a^ittle  water  with  the  hand  on  the  turned  up  face. 
When  Mr.  Ewing  pfeurs  water  on  the  baptized  person,  till  the  latter  is 
covered  completely  with  it,  he  will  give  as  much  trouble  as  if  he  were 
to  immerse  at  once.  In  whatever  way  the  water  in  baptism  is  to  be 
applied,  this  passage  teaches  us  that  the  baptized  person  must  be  totally 
covered. 

Speaking  of  our  Lord's  baptism,  Mr.  Ewing  asserts,  "  the  meaning  of 
the  ordinance,  and  the  very  mode  of  its  administration,  confirmed  the 
truth  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  about  to  be  given."  But  how  did  the 
meaning  and  mode  of  Christ's  baptism  confirm  this  truth?  Does  not 
this  take  for  granted  that  Mr.  Ewing' s  meaning  of  the  mode  and  import 
of  this  ordinance  is  just?  If  the  very  thing  in  debate  is  granted  to  Mr. 
Ewing,  no  doubt  he  will  prove  it.  He  refers  to  John  vii.  39,  and  Acts 
xix.  2,  3.  But  neither  of  these  passages  asserts  what  he  teaches.  He 
speaks  also  of  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  "  visibly  descending  from 
on  high,  and  abiding  upon  him."  The  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  did 
not  visibly  descend.  It  was  the  emblem  of  the  spirit  that  descended 
visibly.  The  appearance  of  a  dove  descended  visibly  and  abode  upon  him. 
But  was  this  Christ's  baptism  ?  The  baptism  was  over  before  the  em- 
blem descended.  Besides,  the  descending  of  the  Spirit  could  not  be  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit.  Jesus  is  not  here  said  to  be  baptized  with  the 
Spirit.  This  baptism  was  literal  baptism.  This  extraordinary  commu- 
nication might  indeed  have  been  called  a  baptism,  just  as  in  the  case  of 
the  disciples,  but  it  is  not  so  called  here ;  and  if  it  were  so  called,  it 
would  not  be  the  descent  of  the  Spirit,  that  is  the  baptism,  but  the  com- 
munication of  it  after  its  descent.  If  the  baptism  consisted  in  the  descent, 
the  baptism  was  over  when  the  dove  reached  Jesus.  Is  it  possible  that 
there  is  any  one  who  has  so  little  of  the  powers  of  discrimination,  as  not 
to  be  able  to  distinguish  between  bringing  water  from  a  fountain,  and 
the  use  of  that  water  when  it  is  brought — between  pouring  water  into  a 
bath,  and  bathing  in  the  bath  ?  Yet  every  one  who  concludes  from  the 
pouring  of  the  Spirit,  that  baptism  must  be  pouring,  either  wants  this 
discrimination,  or  is  unwilling  to  use  it. 


112  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

Another  passage  alleged  by  Mr.  Ewing  on  this  subject,  is  Psal.  xlv.  2, 
"  Grace  is  poured  into  thy  lips,"  &-c.  What  has  this  to  do  with  baptism? 
The  Spirit,  indeed,  is  here  said  to  be  poured,  but  did  any  man  ever 
deny  this?  But  let  it  never  be  forgotten,  that  such  language  does  not 
imply  the  blasphemous  notion,  that  there  is  any  literal  pouring  in  the 
giving  of  the  Spirit,  or  that  an  ordinance  is  appointed  to  represent  this 
pouring.  It  is  quite  useless,  then,  to  refer  to  each  of  the  passages  which 
Mr.  Ewing  alleges  to  prove  a  descent.  The  descent  is  not  the  baptism, 
and  cannot  represent  any  real  movement  in  the  Spirit.  The  same  an- 
swer will  serve  for  all.  But  Mr.  Ewing  says,  that  "  John  supposed  Jesus 
to  receive  the  symbol  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  descent,  and  presently  he  was 
seen,  by  miracle,  to  receive  the  reality."  And  is  it  possible  that  Mr. 
Ewing  can  say,  that  what  was  seen  after  the  baptism  of  Christ  was  the 
reality ! ! !  The  appearance  of  a  dove  seen  to  light  on  the  head  of  Christ, 
the  reality  of  the  communication  of  the  Spirit!!!  Surely,  surely,  the 
dove  itself  was  but  the  emblem,  not  the  reality  represented  by  an  emblem 
of  baptism. 

But  was  the  dovepozircd  out  of  heaven  ?  Is  not^he  Spirit  said  to  de- 
scend from  heaven,  in  conformity  to  the  dove,  the  emblem?  This  shows 
that  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  is  spoken  of  in  language  always  suited  to 
the  emblem  under  which  he  is  represented.  When  water  is  the  emblem, 
his  descent  is  spoken  of  as  pouring,  or  as  falling  like  dew,  die.  When 
the  dove  is  the  emblem,  the  descent  is  spoken  of,  not  as  pouring,  but  as 
the  descent  of  a  bird.  Such  varied  language  is  suited  to  the  various 
emblems,  and  not  to  any  reality  in  the  manner  of  the  communication 
of  the  Spirit.  Let  any  Christian  attend  to  this  observation,  and  he  will 
be  ashamed  of  the  childish,  or  rather  heathenish  explanation  of  this  lan- 
guage, that  implies  that  the  Godhead  is  matter.  Pouring  is  most  fre- 
quently used  for  the  sending  of  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit ;  but  I  have  shown 
that  the  same  thing  is  spoken  of  with  reference  to  a  fountain  springing 
up — a  running  stream, — the  rain  that  is  said  to  fall, — or  the  dew  that 
distils.  And  here  the  same  thing  is  exhibited  as  the  descent  of  a  bird, 
in  conformity  to  the  dove,  which  is  the  emblem  employed.  Let  us  hear 
no  more,  then,  of  baptism  as  pouring,  in  order  to  represent  the  pouring 
of  the  Spirit.  We  may  as  well  make  baptism  a  flying,  to  represent  the 
descent  of  the  dove ;  or  a  blowing  and  a  blazing,  to  represent  the  wind 
and  fire  on  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  or  a  stream,  to  represent  the  river  that 
supplies  the  city  of  God ;  or  a  jet,  to  represent  the  springing  of  a  foun- 
tain ;  or  a  distillation,  to  represent  the  gentle  falling  of  the  dew  ;  or  a 
shower-bath,  to  represent  the  falling  of  the  rain. 

But  if  we  are  so  obstinate  as  to  resist  the  passages  which  Mr.  Ewing 
has  alleged  above,  the  most  incredulous  will  doubtless  surrender  to  the 
"  view  expressly  given  (Acts  ii.  16 — 21,  33,  38,  39,)  of  baptism  with 
water,  in  consequence  of  the  performance  of  the  promise  of  baptism 
with  the  Spirit."  "  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit,"  &c.  "  He  hath 
poured  out  this,  which  ye  now  see  and  hear."  "  For  as  yet  he  was 
fallen  upon  none  of  them."  "  The  Holy  Ghost  fell  upon  them  all." 
The  reply  I  have  given  will  equally  apply  to  this.  The  pouring  is 
not  the  baptism,  though  the  Spirit  was  poured  out,  that  they  might 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  113 

be  baptized  in  it.     The  descent  and  the  pouring  are  over,  before  the 
baptism  takes  place.     But  it  may  be  alleged,  Is  it  not  said  (Acts  xi. 
15,  16,  17,)  that  the  Spirit's  falling  on  them  brought  to  remembrance 
the  promise  of  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  ?     Does  not  this  import  that  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  the  same  thing  with  the  falling  of  the  Spirit  ? — 
It  implies,  indeed,  that  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  fulfilled  the  promise  ; 
but  it  does  not  imply  that  the  baptism  was  the  falling.     The  falling 
preceded  the  baptism.     Rain  falls  to  moisten  the  earth.     The  moistening 
of  the  earth  is  not  the  falling  of  the  rain  ;  the  falling  is  a  previous  pro- 
cess.    Suppose  that  in  a  drought,  a  man  skilled  in  the  signs  of  the 
weather,  should  foretel  that  on  to-morrow  the  earth  tvill  be  moistened  with 
looter,  should  we  not  consider  the  prophecy  fulfilled  when  we  saw  rain 
falling  ?     Yet  falling  is  not  expressed  by  the  word  moistening.     Just  so 
with  the  pouring  and  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit.     Let  my  opponents  bring 
to  the  subject  a  small  portion  of  discrimination,  and  they  will  instantly 
discern  that  the  falling  of  the  Spirit  on  the  disciples,  fulfilled  the  pro- 
mise of  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  though  falling  and  baptism  are  two 
very  different  things.     Is  not  falling  itself  different  from  pouring  ?  They 
are  modes  as  different  as  pouring  and  dipping.     But  every  thing  will 
serve  Mr.  Ewing  that  pops  down.     Yet  strange,  though  he  argues  with 
equal  confidence  from  every  mode  of  descent,  he  comes  at  last  to  the 
confident  conclusion,  that  no  mode  of  descent  will  answer,  but  that  of 
pouring.     Though  falling  and  flying  will  serve  him  in  opposing  immer- 
sion, yet  he  unceremoniously  dismisses  them  ail,  when  through  their 
means  he  has  gained  the  victory.     Even  decent  and  innocent  sprinkling, 
that  has  held  joint  and  unquestioned  possession  with  its  sister  pour  for 
so  long  a  period,  he  turns  out  of  doors  with  every  mark  of  indignity. 

But  with  respect  to  the  falling  of  the  Spirit  on  the  disciples  in  the 
house  of  Cornelius,  how  did  Peter  and  the  rest  perceive  the  descent? 
Was  there  anything  visible  1  No ;  they  knew  that  the  Holy  Spirit  fell 
on  them,  because  they  saw  the  effect  of  his  influences.  Acts  x.  46. 
The  influences,  then,  of  the  Spirit,  and  not  the  falling,  were  the  baptism 
of  the  Spirit. 

Mr.  Ewing  concludes  with  all  the  confidence  of  demonstration  :  "  Is 
it  credible,"  says  he,  "  that  a  word  which  signifies  the  motion  of  body 
upon  body,  in  any  direction,  should,  when  applied  to  represent  both  the 
figure  and  the  reality  of  a  descent  from  above,  be  meant  to  be  under- 
stood of  motion  in  an  opposite  direction  ?"  &c.  Stop  a  little,  Mr.  Ewing. 
You  have  said  that  the  disputed  word  signifies  the  motion  of  body  upon 
body,  but  you  have  not  proved  this.  Nor  is  this  word  employed  to 
represent  the  descent  from  above  in  any  instance  which  you  have  brought 
forward.  Why  does  Mr.  Ewing  substisute  the  word  baptize  here  for  the 
word  descend?  In  his  premises,  the  words  are  pour,  descend,  fall,  &c;  in 
his  conclusion,  they  become  baptize.  This  is  a  trick  in  sleight  of  hand 
which  we  will  not  admit.  It  is  utterly  unlawful  to  reason  from  words 
that  denote  descent,  and  then  draw  the  conclusion  from  baptizo.  So  far 
from  its  being  fact  that  baptizo,  in  the  passages  referred  to,  is  applied  to 
represent  both  the  figure  and  the  reality  of  a  descent,  the  words  that  are 
applied  for  this  purpose  do  not  represent  the  baptism,  but  a  process 

15 


114  THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM. 

previous  to  the  baptism.  Whether  the  water,  or  the  wind,  or  the  fire, 
descends  from  above,  or  ascends  from  below,  is  nothing  to  the  baptism. 
The  baptism  is  the  same,  in  whatever  manner  the  baptizing  substance  is 
conveyed  to  the  place  of  baptizing. 

The  authority  of  Milton  is  utterly  valueless  on  this  subject.  I  notice 
it  merely  to  show  the  boldness  and  the  rashness  of  Mr.  Ewing's  criticism. 
"  Because  Milton  speaks  of  baptism  as  dispensed  in  a  river,"  says  Mr. 
Ewing,  "  it  has  been  supposed  that  he  favoured  the  mode  of  immersion  ; 
but  I  am  inclined  to  think  this  is  a  mistake.  He  says,  indeed,  of  our 
Saviour's  commission  to  his  disciples, 

"  '  To  them  shall  leave  in  charge 
To  teach  all  nations  what  of  him  they  learned, 
And  his  salvation  ;  them  who  shall  believe 
Baptizing  in  the  profluent  stream,  the  sign 
Of  washing  them  from  guilt  of  sin  to  life 
Pure;  and  in  mind  prepared,  if  so  befall, 
For  death,  like  that  which  the  Redeemer  died.'  " 

Well,  reader,  what  do  you  think  of  this?  What  was  Milton's  view 
of  the  mode  of  baptism  ?  If  our  Saviour  commanded  them  to  baptize 
disciples  in  the  profluent  stream,  must  not  baptism  be  immersion  ?  What 
hardihood  must  that  man  possess,  who  will  dare  to  criticise  in  this 
manner !  But,  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  According  to  this  account,  baptism  is 
the  sign  of,  not  immersing,  but  washing  in  a  river."  What  egregious 
trifling !  Baptism  is  not  the  sign  of  immersing  !  That  is,  immersing  is 
not  the  sign  of  immersing.  Very  true ;  for  how  could  a  thing  be  the 
sign  of  itself?  Well,  of  what  is  baptism  a  sign,  according  to  Milton  ? — 
Of  washing  in  a  river  !  So  then  Milton  makes  baptism  a  sign  of  washing 
in  a  river !  Then  the  sign  and  the  thing  signified  are  the  same.  Wash- 
ing in  a  river  is  the  sign  of  washing  in  a  river  !  Alas,  poor  Milton ! 
here  thou  hast  a  fool's  cap.  Illustrious  bard!  perhaps  thou  wast  a 
heretic,  but  certainly  thou  wast  not  a  fool.  Immersion  in  a  river,  thou 
hast  said,  is  the  sign  of  washing  from  guilt.  O  that  thou  hadst  known 
the  reality  as  well  as  thou  didst  know  the  figure !  Hadst  thou  known 
the  Saviour  as  well  as  thou  hast  known  the  mode  of  this  his  ordinance, 
thou  wouldst  have  been  great  indeed ! 

Speaking  of  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  Milton  indeed  uses  the  phrase 
"on  all  baptized."  But  this  may  be  accounted  for  by  his  using  the 
word  baptize  as  it  is  generally  used  in  English.  Using  the  word  in  its 
most  common  acceptation,  I  would  not  scruple  to  say,  baptized  with  the 
Spirit,  when  there  was  no  need  for  accuracy  of  distinction.  Milton,  also, 
from  not  closely  considering  the  phraseology,  might  fall  into  the  vulgar 
error,  that  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  was  pouring,  because  the  Spirit  is 
said  to  be  poured  out,  though  water  baptism  was  by  immersion.  This 
way  of  explaining  the  apparent  inconsistency,  I  believe,  is  not  uncom- 
mon. I  hope  I  have  made  it  unnecessary  to  have  recourse  to  this 
resource. 

Mr.  Ewing  quotes  a  passage  from  which  it  has  been  concluded  that 
Milton  was  opposed  to  infant  baptism,  but  from  which  Mr.  Ewing  him- 
self concludes  that  the  poet  was  a  friend  both  to  pouring  and  the  baptism 


THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM.  115 

of  infants.  I  need  not  quote  the  whole  passage ;  the  marrow  of  it  is 
found  in  the  expression,  "  When  ye  had  laid  the  purifying  element  upon 
his  forehead."  Now,  both  this  and  the  whole  passage  may  agree  with 
either  of  the  opinions,  and  consequently  can  neither  prove  nor  refute 
either.  Mr.  Ewing  is  well  founded  in  supposing  that  the  disparagement 
may  not  respect  the  sprinkling ;  but  he  has  no  authority  to  conclude 
that  Milton  approved  either  of  sprinkling  as  the  mode,  or  of  infants  as 
the  subjects  of  baptism,  because  he  calls  the  water  laid  on  the  foreheads 
of  infants,  a  purifying  element.  Water  is  a  purifying  element,  even  when 
applied  in  the  holy  water  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  nature  of  the 
water  is  the  same,  whether  it  is  used  superstitiously,  or  according  to  the 
appointment  of  God.  But  Milton  might  have  gone  much  farther,  with- 
out giving  ground  for  Mr.  Ewing's  inference.  Many  protestants  would 
speak  of  the  baptism  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  with  all  its  trumpery,  as 
true  baptism.  I  am  not  sure  that  Mr.  Ewing  himself  would  re-baptize 
a  convert  from  popery.  I  refer  to  this  note  with  respect  to  Milton, — 
not  from  any  desire  to  have  him  on  my  side,  but  to  manifest  the  utter 
unreasonableness  of  Mr.  Ewing's  criticism.  No  evidence  could  with- 
stand the  torture  of  such  an  inquisitor.  I  doubt  not  but  Mr.  Ewing 
could  make  Milton  as  orthodox  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity  as  on  bap- 
tism, if  he  would  as  zealously  set  about  the  work. 

We  have  a  delicious  morsel  of  criticism  in  Mr.  Ewing's  explanation 
of  the  figurative  baptism  that  was  fulfilled  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ. 
Mr.  Ewing  is  at  no  loss  to  find  edification  in  his  mode  of  this  ordinance. 
He  does  not  need  the  apostles  as  commissaries  to  find  provision  for  the 
house  of  God.  He  gives  us  much  edification  in  his  explanation  of  this 
ordinance,  not  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures.  "  We  are  led  to  conceive 
of  baptism,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  as  the  pouring  out  of  water  from  a  cup 
on  the  turned  up  face  of  the  baptized ;  and  whether  he  be  adult  or  in 
infancy,  it  may  thus  not  only  wet  the  surface  as  a  figure  of  washing,  but 
be  drunk  into  the  mouth,  as  the  emblem  of  a  principle  of  new  life,  and 
of  continual  support  and  refreshment, — of  a  source  of  spiritual  and  hea- 
venly consolation,  and  of  a  willingness  given,  or  to  be  given,  to  the 
baptized,  to  receive  whatever  may  be  assigned  them  as  their  portion." 
Here  surely  is  a  discovery.  Here  is  edification  unknown  to  all  former 
ages.  Had  the  ancients  perceived  this  in  the  import  of  sprinkling  or 
pouring,  there  would  have  been  no  need  of  the  honey  and  milk  at  baptism. 
Mr.  Ewing  can  obtain  the  same  thing  from  the  manner  of  putting  the 
water  on  the  face.  Mr.  Ewing  considers  the  drinking  of  part  of  the  watei 
poured  on  the  turned  up  face,  as  an  emblem.  If  so,  then  this  drinking 
is  essential  to  true  baptism ;  and  if  any  baptized  person  happen  not  to 
receive  a  part  of  the  water  into  the  mouth,  he  is  not  properly  baptized. 
He  wants  something  that  belongs  to  the  ordinance.  If  this  is  the  case, 
a  very  great  number  are  not  truly  baptized.  Nay,  it  is  not  only  essential 
to  receive  some  of  the  baptismal  water  into  the  mouth,  but  it  is  necessary 
to  drink  it.  If  the  child  by  suffocation  makes  an  involuntary  effort  to 
throw  out  the  water,  it  is  unbaptized.  I  think  the  probability  is,  that 
not  one  of  a  thousand  actually  drink  any  part  of  the  water.  I  am  con- 
vinced also,  that  very  many  who  baptize  by  pouring  water  on  the  face, 


116  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

so  far  from  being  aware  of  the  virtue  of  drinking  a  part  of  the  element, 
endeavour  to  avoid  giving  pain  to  the  child  by  pouring  the  water  into 
the  mouth.  If  this  is  a  part  of  the  emblem  of  baptism,  the  nature  of  the 
ordinance  is  yet  unknown  to  the  great  body  of  those  who  practise  infant 
baptism,  and  the  bidk  of  those  called  Christians  are  unbaptized. 

But  this  drinking  is  not  only  an  emblem,  it  is  an  emblem  pregnant 
with  mysteries.  An  emblem  of  a  principle  of  new  life — of  continual 
support  and  refreshment — of  a  source  of  spiritual  and  heavenly  consola- 
tion— of  a  willingness  given — ay,  and  of  a  willingness  to  be  given,  &c. 
What  a  striking  emblem  of  this  willingness,  is  a  child  screaming  and 
coughing  to  eject  the  water  that  falls  into  its  mouth !  With  what  a  keen 
appetite  does  its  thirsty  soul  drink  down  this  agreeable  beverage  !  What 
pity  that  the  apostles  were  ignorant  of  all  these  mysteries  in  baptism ! 
What  pity  that  Mr.  Ewing's  book  was  not  written  till  the  nineteenth 
century  ! — Ah,  shame !  Can  it  be  possible  that  the  minister  of  an  Inde- 
pendent church,  should  indulge  his  fancy  in  finding  mysteries  in  an 
ordinance  of  Christ,  which  are  nowhere  explained  by  the  apostles  as 
included  in  it  ?  Where  is  the  passage  of  Scripture  that  explains  bap- 
tism as  containing  these  mysteries?  Where  is  this  drinking  found? 
The  very  foundation  of  these  mysteries  is  not  once  mentioned  in  the 
word  of  God.  Where  is  the  turned  up  face  ?  For  anything  that  the 
Scriptures  contain  on  the  subject,  it  might  as  well  be  the  turned  up  foot. 
Another  might  find  mysteries  in  the  foot,  as  well  as  Mr.  Ewing  has 
found  them  in  the  face. 

Mr.  Ewing,  however,  says,  "  We  are  led  to  this  conception  of  baptism, 
by  various  passages  of  Scripture  which  it  will  be  found  to  explain."  But  to 
justify  such  an  explanation,  it  is  not  enough  that  it  will  illustrate  the  vari- 
ous passages  of  Scripture.  Some  passage  of  Scripture  must  explain  the 
ordinance  in  this  sense.  There  is  no  rite  of  superstition  that  might  not, 
by  a  wild  imagination,  be  alleged  to  illustrate  some  passage  of  Scripture. 

We  are  not  yet  at  the  end  of  the  mysteries  in  the  mode  of  baptism. 
"  The  cup,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  which  I  refer  to,  is  the  cup  of  nature, 
that  is,  the  hollow  of  the  human  hand."  Though  the  word  of  God  says 
nothing  at  all  about  the  hand  in  the  administration  of  this  ordinance, 
Mr.  Ewing  finds  it  under  the  designation  of  a  cup.  He  gives  us  the  full 
process  in  the  following  words :  "  From  this  cup,  the  baptizer  so  pours 
it  out  on  the  baptized,  that  it  shall  run  down  his  face,  as  the  ointment 
did  from  the  head  of  Aaron,  and  even  to  the  skirts,  rather  to  the  upper 
border  or  collar  of  his  garment.  Psa.  cxxxiii.  2."  Not  only,  then,  must 
some  of  the  water  be  received  into  the  mouth,  some  of  it  must  also  run 
down  on  the  garments.  What  nice  adjustment  is  necessary  in  the  posi- 
tion of  the  person  to  be  baptized,  that  all  these  mysteries  may  be  accom- 
plished ?  Would  it  not  be  an  improvement  if  a  little  oil  was  added  to 
the  ceremony? 

Mr.  Ewing  next  proceeds  to  caution  against  taking  offence  at  the 
simplicity  of  oriental  manners,  and  to  justify,  by  examples,  this  drinking 
out  of  the  cup  of  nature.  But  all  this  is  unnecessary.  Could  Mr.  Ewing 
show  from  Scripture  that  we  are  to  drink  water  out  of  the  hollow  of  the 
baptizer's  hand,  we  would  submit  without  a  murmur.     He  himself 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  117 

might  have  a  lesson  from  his  own  admonition.  It  is  very  applicable  to 
his  objection  to  immersion.  But  because  it  was  customary  to  drink  out 
of  the  hollow  of  the  hand,  does  it  follow  that  baptism  must  be  such  a 
drinking  ?  There  is  no  connexion  between  the  premises  and  the  con- 
clusion. 

Let  us  not,  however,  be  too  rash  in  asserting  that  Mr.  Ewing  has  no 
Scripture  for  his  mysteries.  He  alleges  several  passages.  Was  ever 
the  Church  of  Rome  at  a  loss  for  Scripture  allusions  to  countenance 
its  rites  and  mysteries?  In  no  instance  is  it  less  successful  than  Mr. 
Ewing.  He  alleges,  1  Cor.  xii.  13,  "  baptized  into  one  body ;"  and 
"  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit."  But  does  this  imply  that  baptizing 
and  drinking  are  the  same  emblem  ?  Does  it  imply  that  these  two 
figures  are  taken  from  a  process  in  baptism?  What  reason  is  there  to 
suppose  that  the  last  respects  that  ordinance  ?  The  two  figures  are  totally 
unconnected, — as  unconnected  as  any  two  figures  that  in  conjunction  are 
applied  to  the  same  object.  That  the  last  has  a  reference  to  drinking  in 
baptism,  is  as  arbitrary  a  conceit  as  anything  in  the  mysteries  of  popery. 

Mr.  Ewing  adds,  "  There  is  perhaps  a  more  intimate  connexion 
between  a  '  cup'  and  a  '  baptism,'  as  belonging  to  one  allusion,  than 
some  readers  of  Scripture  have  as  yet  remarked,  Matt.  xx.  22,"  &c. 
These  figures  both  respect  one  object,  but  they  have  not,  as  Mr.  Ewing 
asserts,  one  allusion.  They  are  figures  as  independent  and  as  distinct, 
as  if  one  of  them  was  found  in  Genesis,  and  the  other  in  Revelation. 
One  of  them  represents  the  sufferings  of  Christ  as  a  cup  of  bitterness  or 
poison,  which  he  must  drink ;  the  other  represents  the  same  sufferings 
as  an  immersion  in  water.  When  the  Psalmist  says,  "  the  Lord  God  is 
a  sun  and  shield"  is  there  one  allusion  in  the  two  figures?  Both  the 
figures  represent  the  same  object,  but  they  have  a  separate  and  altogether 
independent  allusion.  The  sun  is  one  emblem,  a  shield  is  another.  In 
like  manner,  when  the  Psalmist  says,  "  we  went  through  fire  and  through 
water,"  have  the  fire  and  the  ivater  one  allusion?  This  criticism  is 
founded  on  a  total  misconception  of  the  nature  of  figurative  language. 

Again,  if  the  drinking  of  the  cup  and  the  baptism  have  one  allusion, 
that  is,  if  they  both  allude  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  why  are  both  ex- 
pressions used  ?  Is  not  this  the  same  as  to  say,  Are  you  able  to  suffer  as 
1  suffer,  and  to  be  baptized  with  my  baptism  ?  It  gives  not  two  illustra- 
tions of  the  same  thing,  but  merely  two  names.  If  drinking  the  cup  is 
baptism,  then  there  are  not  two  figures.  We  might  as  well  say,  the  son 
of  Philip  king  of  Macedon,  and  Alexander  the  Great.  But  if  the  drinking 
of  the  cup  and  the  baptism,  conjointly,  represent  the  same  object,  each 
exhibiting  a  part,  then  it  follows  that  the  baptism  is  not  baptism,  but  is 
part  of  baptism,  which  is  completed  by  the  drinking.  Besides,  this  view 
places  the  last  part  of  the  figure  first ;  the  drinking  is  before  the  pouring 
out  of  the  cup. 

It  may  be  remarked,  also,  that  if  sufferings  are  represented  as  the 
drinking  of  a  cup,  in  allusion  to  the  cup  of  nature  in  baptism,  then  the 
ordinance  of  baptism  represents  sufferings  as  well  as  blessings.  The 
drinking  in  baptism  represents  not  only  the  reception  of  the  Spirit,  but 
the  suffering  of  afflictions.     The  figure  of  drinking  a  cup,  is  equally 


118  THE   MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

calculated  to  represent  either.  But  both  cannot  be  contained  in  the 
same  cup.  Afflictions  might  be  represented  by  the  drinking  of  a  cup, 
but  not  by  the  cup  of  Christian  baptism,  which  represents  the  blessings 
of  the  Gospel. 

The  expression,  "  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with ;  and  how  am 
I  straitened  till  it  be  finished,"  Luke  xii.  50,  Mr.  Ewing  explains  thus : 
"  I  have  a  cup  to  drink  of,  and  how  am  I  straitened  until  it  be  finished." 
But  it  is  utterly  without  authority  to  say,  that  baptism  is  a  cup.  This 
is  a  new  meaning  given  to  the  word,  with  as  little  foundation  as  to  say 
that  baptism  is  a  swo?'d.  Mr.  Ewing  refers  to  Matt.  xxvi.  39,  for  sup- 
port to  this  explanation.  But  this  gives  him  not  a  shadow  of  counte- 
nance. The  cup  there  spoken  of,  refers  indeed  to  the  sufferings  of  Christ, 
but  the  cup  is  not  called  a  baptism.  These  figures  respect  the  same 
thing,  but  they  do  not  respect  the  same  likeness.  What  a  wild  idea,  to 
suppose  that  two  independent  metaphors  cannot  in  conjunction  illustrate 
the  same  object !  A  hero  is  a  lion,  is  a  tower,  is  a  rock,  is  a  thousand 
things ;  without  supposing  any  identity  or  relation  between  the  lion,  and 
the  tower,  and  the  rock,  and  the  thousand  things  that  represent  him. 
It  is  really  sickening  to  dissect  such  criticism.  Proofs  and  illustrations 
are  brought  forward  and  exhibited  with  an  importance  that  intimates 
them  quite  decisive,  which  have  not  the  most  distant  bearing  on  the 
point  in  hand.  The  passages  in  which  the  sufferings  of  Christ  are 
spoken  of,  under  the  figure  of  dri?iking  a  cup,  are  all  mustered  and 
paraded,  as  if  the  fact  that  this  phrase  refers  to  the  same  thing  with  the 
figurative  baptism  of  Christ,  is  proof  that  they  are  the  same  figure,  or 
must  both  refer  to  baptism.  What  should  we  think  of  the  critic  who 
should  argue  that  the  phrase  sun  and  shield,  in  the  eighty-fourth  Psalm, 
is  one  allusion,  because  they  both  refer  to  God?  This  is  the  very 
crticism  of  Mr.  Ewing. 

Mr.  Ewing  very  justly  observes,  that  in  the  Old  Testament,  the 
punishment  of  the  wicked  by  God  is  represented  by  their  being  com- 
pelled to  drink  a  cup.  But,  surely,  there  can  be  nothing  corresponding 
to  this  in  baptism.  We  are  not  compelled  to  drink  a  cup  of  poison, 
when  we  drink  of  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

"  This  simplicity,  and  this  littleness  of  the  sign,"  says  Mr.  Ewing, 
"  mark  its  resemblance  to  all  the  other  symbolical  ordinances  of  God, 
and  distinguish  it  from  those  clumsy  and  unseemly  additions,  which  a 
superstitious  dependence  on  means,  or  rather  on  the  show  of  wisdom  in 
will-worship,  has  rendered  men  so  prone  to  adopt."  If  any  man  adopts 
immersion  from  a  dependence  on  means,  or  as  an  inventon  of  will- 
worship,  I  will  give  him  up  to  Mr.  Ewing's  most  indignant  reprobation. 
It  is  the  commandment  of  God  I  am  searching  after ;  and  if  I  find  this, 
I  will  never  use  any  reasoning  to  make  the  sign  either  less  or  greater 
than  it  is.  "  I  have  as  little  faith,"  continues  Mr.  Ewing,  "  in  the  com- 
promise of  copious  pouring,  as  in  the  enormity  of  immersion  baptism." 
But  according  to  some  of  the  precedents  alleged  by  the  author  himself, 
he  is  not  at  liberty  to  have  little  faith  in  copious  pouring.  Even 
granting  that  the  Pentecost  baptism  was  pouring,  it  was  an  immensely, 
it  was  an  enormously  copious  pouring.     It  was  a  pouring  that  filled  the 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  119 

whole  house.  It  is  Mr.  Ewing's  business  to  reconcile  this  precedent 
with  his  popping.  But  Mr.  Ewing  gives  us  reasons — Scripture  reasons, 
for  his  having  little  faith  in  copious  pouring.  "  A  small  quantity  of 
blood  sprinkled  once  a  year,"  says  he,  "  by  the  high  priest,  with  one  of 
his  fingers,  on  a  little  gold-plated  seat,  was,  for  ages,  the  sign  to  Israel, 
of  the  acceptance  in  heaven  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  for  the  whole 
church."  Very  true,  because  a  small  quantity  was  sufficient  to  perfect 
the  figure.  A  small  quantity  of  water  cannot  suffice  for  the  exhibition 
of  the  likeness  of  a  burial  and  resurrection,  which  are  declared  by  God 
to  be  the  import  of  baptism.  Had  God  commanded  to  sprinkle  with  a 
few  drops  of  water,  or  to  pour  a  little  water  on  the  turned  up  face,  for 
a  purpose  that  such  an  emblem  is  calculated  to  serve,  it  would  have 
been  impious  to  change  this  into  another  ordinance  to  represent  a  burial 
and  resurrection.  A  little  blood  served  the  priest  for  sprinkling ;  but  a 
little  water  did  not  serve  him  for  his  bathing.  A  "  little  gold-plated 
seat"  served  to  receive  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood ;  but  a  little  water 
did  not  serve  to  fill  the  brazen  sea.  "A  small  morsel  of  bread,  and  a 
sip  of  wine,"  &c.  No  doubt  of  it;  but  this  small  quantity  is  as  fit  to 
represent  the  thing  figured,  as  a  baker's  shop  and  a  wine  cellar  would 
be.  "  The  handful  of  water,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  on  the  face  of  the 
polluted  sinner,  confirms  the  good  news  of  the  washing  of  regeneration," 
&c.  If  loashing  only  were  intended  to  be  represented,  this  might  be 
true :  but  the  Spirit  of  inspiration  has  declared,  that  this  ordinance  re- 
presents the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  our  fellowship  with 
him  in  these,  by  faith  in  which  we  are  washed.  Had  not  God  instituted 
immersion,  and  explained  its  meaning,  man  could  not  do  either.  I 
disclaim  all  ordinances  of  will-worship,  and  all  human  explanations  of 
Scripture  ordinances.  God  only  can  institute.  God  only  can  interpret. 
If  Mr.  Ewing  claims  the  right  of  inventing  mysteries  in  the  signification 
of  baptism,  I  believe  he  will  not  find  a  fellow  among  those  on  the  other 
side  of  the  question. 

The  passage  of  the  children  of  Israel  through  the  Red  Sea  is  figura- 
tively called  a  baptism,  from  its  external  resemblance  to  that  ordinance, 
and  from  being  appointed  to  serve  a  like  purpose,  as  well  as  to  figure 
the  same  thing.  "  Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not  that  ye  should  be 
ignorant,  how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed 
through  the  sea;  and  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in 
the  sea,"  1  Cor.  x.  1.  Here  they  are  said  to  have  been  baptized.  There 
can  be  no  doubt,  therefore,  that  there  is  in  their  passage  through  the 
sea,  something  that  resembles  both  the  external  form,  and  the  purpose 
of  Christian  baptism.  It  was  a  real  immersion — the  sea  stood  on  each 
side,  and  the  cloud  covered  them.  But  it  was  not  a  literal  immersion  in 
water,  in  the  same  way  as  Christian  baptism.  It  is,  therefore,  figuratively 
called  by  the  name  of  the  Christian  ordinance,  because  of  external 
similarity,  and  because  of  serving  the  like  purpose,  as  well  as  figuring 
the  same  event.  The  going  down  of  the  Israelites  into  the  sea,  their 
being  covered  by  the  cloud,  and  their  issuing  out  on  the  other  side,  re- 
sembled the  baptism  of  believers,  served  a  like  purpose  as  attesting 
their  faith  in  Moses  as  a  temporal  saviour,  and  figured  the  burial  and 


120  THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM. 

resurrection  of  Christ  and  Christians,  as  well  as  Christian  baptism.  If 
Christian  baptism  is  a  representation  of  burial  and  resurrection, — and 
if  the  passage  of  the  Israelites  is  called  a  baptism,  we  are  warranted  in 
supposing  that  both  have  the  same  figurative  meaning.  It  has  been 
argued  by  some,  that  the  Israelites  were  baptized  by  the  rain  from  the 
cloud,  and  the  spray  from  the  sea.  But  this  is  quite  arbitrary ;  for  there 
is  nothing  said  about  rain  from  the  cloud,  or  spray  from  the  sea.  It  is 
not  in  evidence  that  any  such  things  existed.  On  the  contrary,  as  they 
would  have  been  an  annoyance,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  they 
did  not  exist.  The  baptism  of  the  Israelites  in  ver.  2,  is  evidently  re- 
ferred to  their  having  been  under  the  cloud,  and  having  passed  through 
the  sea,  as  stated  in  the  first  verse. 

Dr.  Wardlaw  asks  in  astonishment,  "Are  our  brethren  not  sensible  of 
the  straining  that  is  necessary  to  make  out  immersion  baptism  here?" 
Not  in  the  least  sensible  of  any  straining,  I  can  assure  Dr.  Wardlaw. 
But  we  do  not  strain  to  make  out  a  literal  baptism,  as  respects  an  ordi- 
nance to  be  performed  as  an  appointment  of  God.  Surely  there  is  no 
straining,  to  see  in  this  fact  something  that  may  darkly  shadow  a  burial. 
There  is  no  straining  to  find  in  it  something  corresponding  to  Christian 
baptism,  though  in  all  things  it  does  not  identify  with  it.  However  ri- 
diculous this  conceit  may  appear  to  Dr.  Wardlaw,  it  is  the  very  thing  as- 
serted by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Israelites,  by  being  under  the  cloud,  and 
passing  through  the  sea,  were  baptized  into  Moses.  By  venturing  to 
enter  into  the  sea,  they  professed  and  exhibited  full  confidence  in  Moses 
as  sent  of  God  to  lead  them  out  of  Egypt  to  Canaan. 

"A  dry  baptism  !  "  exclaims  Dr.  Wardlaw.  Be  patient,  Dr.  Wardlaw  : 
was  not  the  Pentecost  baptism  a  dry  baptism?  Christian  baptism  is  not 
a  dry  baptism ;  but  the  baptism  of  Pentecost,  and  of  the  Israelites  in  the 
Red  Sea,  were  dry  baptisms.  Immersion  does  not  necessarily  imply 
wetting  :  immersion  in  water  implies  this.  "  Would  our  brethren,"  says 
Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  consider  a  man  duly  baptized  by  his  being  placed  be- 
tween two  cisterns  of  water,  with  a  third  over  his  head  ?  "  Certainly  not. 
Nothing  is  Christian  baptism,  but  the  immersion  of  a  believer  in  water, 
in  obedience  to  the  command  of  Jesus.  Every  thing  that  can  be  called 
immersion  is  not  baptism  as  an  ordinance  of  Christ.  Strange,  indeed, 
that  Dr.  Wardlaw  should  suppose  that  every  thing  is  Christian  baptism, 
which  can  be  denominated  an  immersion.  To  be  spotted  with  blood  is 
a  sprinkling:  would  Dr.  Wardlaw  consider  this  true  Christian  baptism  ? 
In  an  ordinance  of  Christ  there  is  something  more  than  mode.  Would 
Dr.  Wardlaw  consider  a  man  duly  baptized,  when  he  is  sprinkled  with 
rain,  or  wet  with  dew  ?  The  Spirit  of  God  calls  the  passage  through  the 
Red  Sea  a  baptism ;  a  likeness  then  it  must  have  to  the  Christian  ordi- 
nance of  baptism,  to  which  there  is  an  undoubted  reference.  Surely 
it  requires  less  straining  to  find  this  likeness  from  the  facts  stated,  than 
from  fancies  supposed.  The  passage  through  the  sea  as  much  resem- 
bles baptism,  as  the  manna  does  the  bread  in  the  Lord's  supper.  They 
are  figures  of  the  same  thing,  and  therefore,  though  different,  are  simi- 
lar. 


THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  121 

Section  XV. — Having  examined  the  testimony  of  the  figurative  appli- 
cations of  the  word  baptizo,  I  shall  now  try  what  light  can  be  obtained 
from  its  syntax,  and  the  circumstances  in  which  it  is  found.  Matt.  iii.  11 : 
"  I  baptize  you  in  water."  It  may  be  surprising  that,  after  ail  that 
has  been  said  on  the  subject,  1  should  still  lay  any  stress  on  the  prepo- 
sition en,  in.  I  may  be  asked,  Do  you  deny  that  it  may  be  translated 
icith  ?  I  do  not  deny  this,  yet  I  am  still  disposed  to  lay  stress  on  it.  A 
word  may  be  used  variously,  yet  be  in  each  of  its  applications  capable 
of  being  definitely  ascertained.  Were  not  this  the  case,  language  would 
be  incapable  of  conveying  definite  meaning.  To  ascertain  its  meaning 
here,  I  shall  submit  the  following  observations :  1.  In  is  its  primary 
and  most  usual  signification.  Even  in  the  instances  in  which  it  is 
translated  otherwise,  it  may  generally  be  reduced  to  its  primary  mean- 
ing, although  it  is  more  usual  with  our  idiom  to  employ  other  prepo- 
sitions. There  are  instances,  indeed,  in  which  we  cannot  trace  the 
primary  idea.  This,  however,  is  nothing  but  what  happens  with  our 
own  preposition  in,  and  with  all  prepositions.  If  the  Greeks  say,  en 
cheiri  ischura,  (in  a  strong  hand,)  we  say,  they  went  out  in  arms.  En  is 
so  obviously  the  parent  of  in,  that  Mr.  Ewing  says,  that ';  it  can  hardly 
be  called  a  translation."  He  considers  it  merely  a  change  of  alphabet. 
It  may  be  true,  that  this  was  the  case  in  the  formation  of  the  derived 
word,  but  it  certainly  is  a  translation  in  as  full  a  sense  as  any  one  word 
is  a  translation  of  another.  It  is  not  like  baptize,  which  was  not  a  word 
of  our  language.  In  is  an  English  word,  as  truly  as  en  is  a  Greek  one. 
It  is  given  as  an  equivalent  to  en,  not  because  it  was  formed  from  it,  but 
because  in  meaning  it  coincides  with  it.  We  adopted  the  word  and  its 
meaning  also. 

2.  As  the  instances  in  the  acceptation  of  this  preposition  in  which 
the  primary  idea  cannot  be  traced  are  extremely  few,  so  it  cannot  be 
admitted  in  a  signification  inconsistent  with  this  idea,  except  when 
necessity  demands  it.  If  the  words  in  connexion  admit  the  primary 
and  usual  meaning,  it  is  unwarrantable  to  look  for  another.  Such  a 
use  would  render  the  passage  inextricably  equivocal.  The  passages  in 
which  it  is  translated  with,  are,  without  exception,  of  this  cast.  They 
would  not  make  sense  in  our  idiom,  if  en  were  translated  in.  Without 
such  a  necessity,  no  translator  would  ever  think  of  rendering  en  by  with. 
What  is  more  usual  than  to  find,  when  en  is  translated  among,  &c, 
critics  explaining  it  as  being  "  literally  in  ?"  Now,  in  the  instance 
alluded  to,  all  the  words  in  connexion  admit  the  primary  and  usual 
meaning  of  en.  Even  the  most  extravagant  of  our  opponents  admit, 
that  baptizo  signifies  to  dip.  If,  then,  the  word  also  signifies  to  pour, 
to  use  en  in  connexion  with  it,  would  render  it  altogether  equivocal. 
We  could  not  from  the  passage  determine  its  meaning.  I  contend, 
then,  that  though  en  may  sometimes  be  translated  with,  yet  it  cannot 
be  so  used  here.  For  if  baptizo  is  allowed  to  denote  dip,  and  not  pour, 
with  is  rejected  as  incongruous :  if  baptizo  is  supposed  to  signify  either 
dip  or  pour,  then  to  use  a  preposition  after  it  which  usually  signifies  in, 
but  here  in  the  sense  of  tvith,  which  is  rare,  would  inevitably  be  equi- 
vocal, or  would  rather  lead  to  a  false  meaning.    It  is  absurd  to  suppose, 

16 


122  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

that  such  an  equivocal  expression  could  be  used  with  respect  to  the 
performance  of  a  Divine  ordinance,  which  is  to  be  a  precedent  for  all 
ages. 

3.  I  have  produced  innumerable  examples  in  which  en  is  construed 
with  this  verb  incontestably  in  the  sense  of  dipping.  If,  then,  we  have 
found  the  disputed  phrase  in  a  situation  in  which  our  opponents  must 
admit  our  meaning  of  it;  if  the  examples  of  this  meaning  of  the  phrase 
are  numerous ;  and  if  no  example  can  be  produced  in  which  the  phrase 
is  used  in  a  situation  in  which  we  must  confess  that  it  refers  to  pouring, 
or  any  other  thing  but  dipping, — all  the  laws  of  language  forbid  the 
supposition  of  pouring.  What  can  forbid  the  phrase  to  have  its  usual 
meaning  ?  What  can  authorise  a  meaning  which  the  phrase  has  not 
necessarily  in  any  other  passage  ? 

4.  Even  Mr.  Ewing's  translation  of  boptizo  will  not  construe  with  en 
in  the  sense  of  with.  He  would  not  say,  I  pop  you  toith  water,  but  I 
pop  upon  you  with  water.  Now,  there  is  no  upon  in  the  verb.  Mr. 
Ewing,  indeed,  supposes  himself  at  liberty  to  vary  his  word  pop  by  any 
preposition  he  chooses  to  subjoin  to  it.  But  he  cannot  do  so  without 
something  in  the  original  to  justify  the  variation.  I  have  shown  that 
to  pop,  to  pop  upon,  to  pop  into,  &,c,  are  all  different  words.  To  con- 
sider them  all  as  contained  in  baptizo  and  in  pop,  is  to  say  that  a  half- 
penny is  a  guinea,  because  in  a  guinea  there  is  a  portion  of  copper, — 
or  that  copper  is  brass,  because  brass  contains  copper  as  a  part  of  its 
composition. 

5.  Any  translation  that  can  be  given  of  en  is  inconsistent  with  the 
supposition  that  baptizo  signifies  to  pour.  We  could  not  say,  "  I  pour 
you  with  water."  Pour  must  be  immediately  followed  by  the  thing 
poured,  and  not  with  the  person  on  whom  anything  is  poured.  It  is  not 
/  pour  you  icith  water,  but  /  pour  water  upon  you.  The  syntax,  then, 
of  the  word,  as  well  as  its  acceptation,  forbids  pouring  as  the  mode  of 
baptism. 

What  I  have  further  to  observe  on  this  passage,  will  occur  in  my  re- 
marks on  Mr.  Ewing's  attack  on  Dr.  Campbell's  note. 

In  admitting  that  en  may  sometimes  signify  with,  Dr.  Campbell 
appears  to  ground  the  fact  on  a  Hebraism.  In  this  sense  Mr.  Ewing 
understands  him;  in  which  he  coincides.  "That  the  phraseology  to 
which  the  Dr.  refers,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  does  not  restrict  the  sense  to 
in,  but  absolutely  recommends  the  sense  of  with,  appears  from  the 
occasional  omission  of  the  preposition,  the  use  of  it  in  such  phrases 
being  entirely  a  Hebraism,  corresponding  with  the  Hebrew  beth,  which, 
as  the  Dr.  owns,  signifies  with  as  well  as  in"  Now,  in  opposition  both 
to  Dr.  Campbell  and  Mr.  Ewing,  I  maintain  that  en  in  this  use  is  not  a 
Hebraism,  either  in  its  meaning  or  use.  It  signifies  with  in  classical 
Greek,  as  well  as  in  the  Septuagint  or  New  Testament ;  and  just  in  the 
same  circumstances.  It  is  also  as  frequently  used  with  this  verb  in  the 
heathen  authors,  as  in  the  Scriptures.  To  convince  any  one  of  this,  it 
is  necessary  only  to  look  over  the  examples  which  I  have  produced,  both 
with  respect  to  bapto  and  baptizo,  which  perfectly  coincide  in  their 
syntax.     Was  Hippocrates  a  Hellenistic  Jew  ? 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  123 

Indeed,  to  enlarge  the  meaning  of  a  Greek  preposition,  that  it  may 
correspond  with  a  Hebrew  preposition,  is  a  thing  which,  though  the 
conceit  has  been  sanctioned  by  Dr.  Campbell,  and  many  great  names,  is 
a  pure  absurdity.  To  do  so,  would  not  be  to  speak  the  Greek  language. 
To  do  so,  would  be  to  mislead  all  the  Greek  nations.  There  is  not  one 
instance  in  which  such  a  thing  is  done  in  the  word  of  God.  If  the 
apostles  used  the  Greek  prepositions,  not  as  the  Greeks  themselves  used 
them,  but  as  the  Hebrews  used  theirs,  they  have  not  given  a  revelation 
of  the  will  of  God.  This  view  of  the  Hebraism  of  the  New  Testament 
is  one  of  the  worst  things  in  Dr.  Campbell's  translation.  Whatever  may 
be  the  extent  of  the  Hebraisms  of  the  New  Testament,  they  cannot, 
consistently  with  the  honour  of  revelation,  be  supposed  to  affect  the 
sense.  This  supposition  is  the  resource  of  those  who  wish  to  corrupt 
the  Gospel  of  Christ,  or,  in  some  way,  to  modify  a  disagreeable  doctrine. 

Equally  groundless,  and  even  equally  absurd,  is  Mr.  Ewing's  assertion, 
that  the  fact  that  the  preposition  is  sometimes  omitted,  recommends  the 
sense  of  with.  If  that  preposition  is  sometimes  written,  and  sometimes 
left  out,  it  is  as  clear  as  an  axiom,  that  the  passages  in  which  it  is 
omitted,  must  agree  with  the  passages  in  which  it  is  written,  and  must 
be  translated  just  as  if  it  were  present.  The  meaning  of  the  passages, 
then,  in  which  it  is  omitted,  must  be  determined  by  those  in  which  it  is 
written.  When  it  is  not  expressed  it  must  be  understood.  Such  an 
omission,  then,  can  cast  no  light  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  Ewing  alleges,  that  "  our  English  translators,  at  least,  being 
friends  of  immersion,  would  have  been  led  by  their  system  to  have 
patronised  the  Dr.'s  translation.  But  this  is  a  fallacious  argument. 
It  is  true,  as  Mr.  Ewing  says,  that  on  this  question  our  translators  were 
"  directly  opposed"  to  him.  But  what  sort  of  friends  were  they  to 
immersion  ?  Just  such  as  Professor  Porson,  and  the  thousands  of 
learned  men  who  have  the  candour  to  confess  the  truth,  though,  as  they 
think  the  matter  of  little  importance,  they  practise  the  contrary.  There 
was  then  no  temptation  to  induce  them  to  testify  for  immersion.  There 
was  the  strongest  temptation  to  induce  them  to  accommodate  their 
translation  to  the  practice  of  their  church,  not  to  their  views  of  the 
original  mode  of  baptism.  Dr.  Wall  was  so  far  a  friend  of  immersion, 
that  he  would  have  preferred  it;  yet  how  has  he  laboured  to  prove  that  it 
is  not  necessary !  Mr.  Ewing's  friend's  strictures,  then,  on  Dr.  Ryland, 
have  no  weight,  for  they  view  the  subject  in  a  false  light.  The  authority 
of  our  translators  in  our  favour,  is  the  authority,  not  of  friends,  but  of 
practical  opposers ;  and,  as  Dr.  Campbell  has  shown,  real  opposers,  in 
every  case,  that  could,  in  their  judgment,  admit  pouring  or  sprinkling. 

Dr.  Campbell  has  censured  our  translators  as  inconsistent,  in  render- 
ing en  udati  "  with  water,"  while  they  rendered  en  to  Iordane  "  in 
Jordan."  How  does  Mr.  Ewing  vindicate  them  from  inconsistency  ? 
Why,  by  alleging  that  the  former  refers  to  the  act  and  elements  of 
baptism,  and  the  latter  to  the  place  !  Now,  this  might  vindicate  Mr. 
Ewing,  but  it  does  not  vindicate  our  translators.  Mr.  Ewing  forgets 
that  the  conceit  that  Iordane  is  not  the  river,  but  the  district  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  river,  is  of  his  own  invention.     Our  translators 


124  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

evidently  understood  it  of  the  river  itself,  as  every  sober  reader  must  do. 
Our  translators,  then,  remain  under  Dr.  Campbell's  censure,  for  any- 
thing that  Mr.  Ewing  has  done  to  relieve  them. 

to  O 

But  let  us  see  if  he  can  justify  himself  in  this  business.  I  admit  that 
"a  difference  of  connexion"  will  justify  us  in  "understanding  the  same 
word  in  a  different  sense."  But  I  see  no  difference  of  connexion  here. 
On  the  contrary,  the  word  Jordan,  in  the  sixth  verse,  as  evidently 
means  the  river  Jordan,  as  tvater  in  the  eleventh  verse  means  water. 
The  Jordan  never  signifies,  as  Mr.  Ewing  supposes,  the  plain  of  Jordan, 
the  valley  of  Jordan,  or  Jordan-dale.  This  is  a  figment  formed  for  a 
particular  purpose.  Can  Mr.  Ewing  justify  this  explanation  by  a  single 
corresponding  example,  in  which  a  similar  phrase  must  be  so  understood  ? 
Were  we  to  read  in  the  newspapers  that  certain  persons  in  Glasgow 
were  baptized  in  the  Clyde,  should  we  understand  that  it  imported  merely 
that  they  were  baptized  in  Clydesdale?  This  is  a  daring  perversion  of 
the  words  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  requires  a  hardihood  that  every 
heretic  does  not  possess.  An  Arian  or  a  Socinian  does  not  require  more. 
No  Neological  gloss  is  more  extravagant.  The  Spirit  of  God  tells  us 
that  our  Lord  did  many  miracles ;  the  Neologist  forces  him  to  say  that 
there  was  nothing  miraculous  in  the  Saviour's  works.  The  Spirit  of 
God  tells  us  that  the  people  of  Israel  were  baptized  by  John  in  the 
Jordan ;  Mr.  Ewing  forces  him  to  say  that  it  was  not  in  Jordan,  but  in 
Jordan-dale.  What  a  system  is  it  that  compels  its  abettors  to  take  such 
liberties  with  the  word  of  God !  I  view  such  conduct,  not  only  with 
disapprobation,  but  with  horror. 

But  Mr.  Ewing  says  that  an  Evangelist  explains  the  thing  in  his 
sense.  This  is  high  authority  indeed.  I  will  ask  no  better.  If  this  is 
made  good,  I  will  bow  with  submission.  "  That  it  was  not  the  water  of 
the  river,  but  the  country  on  its  banks,  is  evident  from  the  fuller  and 
more  particular  account  of  the  apostle  John.  What  Matthew  calls,  in 
Jordan,  John  calls,  in  Bethabara,  and  expressly  says,  it  was  beyond 
Jordan." 

I  admit  the  premises ;  I  deny  the  conclusion.  Let  the  two  evange- 
lists refer  to  the  same  thing,  yet  what  the  one  calls  Jordan,  the  other 
does  not  call  Bethabara.  Matthew  speaks  of  the  river  in  which  John 
was  baptizing ;  John  of  the  town  in  which  he  was  baptizing.  John  is 
more  particular  as  to  the  part  of  the  river  in  which  the  Baptist  was 
baptizing;  it  was  in  the  town  of  Bethabara.  Matthew  is  more  particular 
with  respect  to  the  water  in  which  he  was  baptizing ;  it  was  the  Jordan. 
Corresponding  to  this,  with  respect  to  the  same  person,  one  writer  might 
say,  "  he  was  baptizing  in  the  Clyde  ;"  another,  "  he  was  baptizing  in 
Glasgow."  Mr.  Ewing  himself,  in  asserting  that  John's  account  of  this 
matter  is  more  particular  than  that  of  Matthew,  virtually  admits  that  it 
is  not  necessary  that  Jordan  should  be  perfectly  equivalent  to  Bethabara; 
for  if  one  account  may  be  more  particular  than  another,  Bethabara  may 
axpress  the  place  or  part  of  the  river,  while  Jordan  expresses  the  water 
in  which  John  baptized 

Let  it,  however,  be  supposed  that  the  expression  of  the  one  evangelist 
exactly  corresponds  to  that  of  the  other,  what  follows?     As  Jordan 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  125 

signifies  Jordan-dale,  so  Bethabara  must  not  denote  the  town,  but  the 
whole  district  supposed  to  be  called  Jordan-dale.  According  to  Mr. 
Ewing  himself,  these  two  words  do  not  correspond.  He  makes  the  one  to 
denote  the  whole  country ;  the  other,  one  town  situated  in  the  country. 

Still  it  may  be  said,  if  the  two  accounts  refer  to  the  same  thing,  as 
John  is  said  to  be  baptizing  in  Bethabara,  and  as  this  town  was  beyond 
Jordan,  so  he  could  not  be  baptizing  in  the  river,  which  was  on  one 
side  of  the  town.  Mr.  Ewing  will  let  us  come  to  the  margin  of  the 
stream,  but  the  phrase,  he  says,  will  not  carry  us  "  one  jot  farther."  This 
is  hard  enough.  I  will  try  to  advance  a  little  into  the  river.  This  I  am 
enabled  to  do  with  the  sanction  of  the  usual  phraseology  in  similar 
cases.  The  limits  of  a  town,  in  speaking  in  a  general  way,  are  not  con- 
fined to  the  ground  occupied  by  the  houses'.  Suppose,  for  instance, 
that  a  man  is  charged  with  having  committed  a  breach  of  the  peace,  on 
a  certain  day  of  the  month,  in  Glasgow.  In  proving  an  alibi,  he  alleges 
that  he  was  on  that  day  in  the  town  of  Belfast.  Opposite  counsel  cries 
out,  "  My  lords,  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  he  is  a  perjured  rascal,  for 
I  can  prove  that  he  was  the  whole  of  that  day  in  a  ship  in  Belfast  har- 
bour. He  never  once  entered  the  town  that  day."  What  will  the  judge 
and  jury  think  of  such  a  mode  of  proof?  Surely  he  was  in  Belfast 
when  he  was  in  the  port  of  Belfast.  And  is  it  not  the  same  thing  with 
the  town  and  port  of  Bethabara?  When  Mr.  Ewing  changes  his  views 
on  the  subject,  and  comes  over  to  Belfast  to  baptize  his  brethren  in  that 
town,  it  will  be  asked  by  some  of  the  people  of  Glasgow,  Where  is  Mr. 
Ewing?  The  reply  will  be,  "  He  is  in  Belfast,  baptizing  the  indepen- 
dent church  of  that  town."  This  reply  will  be  made  without  any  refer- 
ence to  the  situation  of  the  water.  Might  it  not  also  be  said,  that  the 
people  of  Glasgow  go  down  to  Gourock  or  Helensburgh  to  bathe?  Yet 
the  place  of  bathing  is  in  the  sea.  Might  it  not  also  be  said,  that  such 
a  person  was  drowned  in  Port-Glasgow  while  he  was  bathing  in  the 
Clyde  ?  In  like  manner,  it  might  have  been  added  to  John's  account, 
that  the  Baptist  was  baptizing  in  Jordan.  John  was  baptizing  in  Betha- 
bara in  the  Jordan.  Now,  Mr.  Ewing,  say  candidly,  am  I  not  now  entitled 
to  step  a  little  distance  from  the  margin  into  the  river  ?  Have  I  not  de- 
molished this  strong  hold? 

But  I  have  many  other  resources,  had  it  been  necessary  to  employ 
them  on  this  point.  A  small  bend  in  the  river,  or  hollow  in  the  bed  on 
one  side,  might  have  formed  a  basin,  so  that  houses  might  actually  have 
been  nearer  to  the  centre  of  the  river,  than  some  parts  of  the  basin.  A 
bare  possibility  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  obviate  a  difficulty.  But  sober 
criticism  could  never  dwell  on  such  things.  The  common  forms  of  speech 
utterly  condemn  such  a  mode  of  opposition.  Indeed,  the  houses  do  not 
generally  extend  to  the  margin  of  the  sea  or  river.  If  a  town  was  limit- 
ed by  the  houses,  the  quay  itself  would  often  be  no  part  of  it.  The 
harbour  has  as  good  a  title  to  be  included  in  the  town  as  the  quay. 

But  there  is  another  awkward  situation  in  which  our  view,  it  seems, 
places  John  the  Baptist,  out  of  which  I  must  endeavour  to  deliver  him. 
Mr.  Ewing  asserts,  that  if  John  the  Baptist  baptized  in  Bethabara,  stand- 
ing in  the  water  of  the  river,  then  he  must  have  been  in  that  situation 


126  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

when  he  bore  his  testimony  to  the  priests  and  Levites.  Now,  it  is  a 
hard  thing  to  keep  the  poor  man  in  the  water  during  this  discourse.  I 
will  endeavour,  then,  to  put  him  on  dry  ground.  The  argument  is,  that 
in  John  i.  23,  all  the  things  previously  mentioned  are  said  to  have  been 
done  in  Bcthabara,  tohcre  John  was  baptizing.  Therefore,  if  he  was 
standing  in  the  water  when  he  spoke  to  the  priests,  all  the  things  are 
said  to  be  done  in  the  same  place.  The  answer  is,  all  the  things  were 
indeed  done  in  the  same  place,  that  is,  in  Bethabara,  but  this  does  not 
imply  that  they  were  done  in  the  same  part  of  Bethabara.  When  Mr 
Ewing  comes  to  baptize  his  brethren  in  Belfast,  it  is  likely  he  may  have 
a  fierce  encounter  with  the  Arians.  The  Glasgow  newspapers  will  say, 
"these  things  happened  in  Belfast,  where  Mr.  Ewing  was  baptizing.' 
Will  the  people  of  Glasgow  understand  that  the  engagement  with  the 
Arians  was  when  Mr.  Ewing  was  actually  baptizing?  Ah,  Mr.  Ewing! 
what  shall  I  call  such  a  mode  of  opposing  immersion?  Shall  I  call  it 
childish?  Or  shall  I  call  it  perverse?  Were  it  in  reality  asserted,  that 
John  gave  his  testimony  to  the  priests  while  he  was  baptizing,  I  would 
implicitly  believe  it.  The  thing  is  not  impossible.  There  is  not,  how- 
ever, the  smallest  appearance  of  such  an  assertion. 

That  Jordan  denotes  the  river,  and  not  the  country  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Jordan,  is  not  only  obvious  from  the  word  of  God,  it  is  expressly 
asserted  to  be  the  river  by  Mark  i.  5,  where  the  word  river  is  joined  to 
it.  "And  there  went  out  unto  him  all  the  land  of  Judea,  and  they  of 
Jerusalem,  and  were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the  river  of  Jordan,  confess- 
ing their  sins."  Nothing  can  limit  the  word  more  clearly  than  this,  in 
the  river  Jordan.  As  if  the  Holy  Spirit  had  anticipated  Mr.  Ewing's 
perversion  of  the  word  Jordan,  by  converting  it,  without  any  authority, 
into  Jordan-dale,  the  word  river  is  added  to  it  by  Mark.  Mr.  Ewing, 
indeed,  says,  that  if  John  i.  28,  Matt.  iii.  6 — 13,  John  x.  40,  are  con- 
sidered, they  will  explain  Mark  i.  5,  in  his  sense.  But  I  hope  I  have 
shown  that  these  passages  have  no  bearing  on  the  point.  It  would  be  a 
strange  explanation  that  would  explain  the  river  Jordan  not  to  be  the 
river  Jordan,  but  something  else.  This  would  be  a  Neological  expla- 
nation. There  is  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  other  evidence 
that  baptism  was  performed  by  immersion.  It  is  said  that  Jesus,  when 
he  was  baptized,  went  up  straightway  from  the  water.  I  admit  the  proper 
translation  of  apo  is  from,  and  not  out  of;  and  that  the  argument  from 
the  former  is  not  of  the  same  nature  with  that  which  is  founded  on  eh, 
out  of.  I  perfectly  agree  with  Mr.  Ewing,  that  apo  would  have  its  mean- 
ing fully  verified,  if  they  had  only  gone  down  to  the  edge  of  the  wa- 
ter. I  shall  not  take  a  jot  more  from  a  passage  than  it  contains.  The 
Bible  is  orthodox  enough  for  me  as  it  is.  How  then  can  I  deduce  dip- 
ping from  the  phrases  going  doicn,  and  coming  up  from  ?  My  argument 
is  this. — If  baptism  had  not  been  by  immersion,  there  can  be  no  ade- 
quate cause  alleged  for  going  to  the  river.  Can  sober  judgment,  can  can- 
dour suppose,  that  if  a  handful  of  water  would  have  sufficed  for  baptism, 
they  would  have  gone  to  the  river  ?  Many  evasions  have  been  alleged 
to  get  rid  of  this  argument,  but  it  never  will  be  fairly  answered.  I  have 
strong  suspicions  that  these  evasions  are  scarcely  satisfactory,  even  to 


THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  127 

those  who  make  them.  I  am  much  mistaken  if  they  are  not  perplexed 
with  the  circumstance  of  John  the  Baptist's  great  predilection  for  the 
neighbourhood  of  Jordan,  and  other  places,  where  the  water  is  the  very 
reason  assigned  for  the  preference.  There  is  no  spot  on  the  earth  in 
which  a  human  being  can  be  found,  that  without  any  inconvenience  will 
not  afford  a  handful  of  water.  Even  in  a  besieged  town,  with  a  scarcity 
of  water,  what  would  sprinkle  the  whole  inhabitants  would  not  be  felt  as 
a  sensible  loss. 

Mr.  Ewing  attempts  to  account  for  the  above  phraseology,  by  the  fact 
that  fountains  and  rivers  are  generally  in  hollow  places.  This,  indeed, 
accounts  for  the  phraseology ,  but  does  it  account  for  this  fact !  Whether 
the  river  was  in  a  hill  or  in  a  valley,  why  did  they  go  to  it,  when  a 
handful  of  water  would  have  sufficed.  Mr.  Ewing  himself  says,  "  I 
believe,  indeed,  that  John  frequented  the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  as  the 
most  convenient  place  of  the  wilderness,  not  only  for  multitudes  to  attend 
him,  but  also  for  having  water  at  hand  with  which  to  baptize  them." 
But  was  there  any  place  in  Judea  in  which  he  could  not  find  a  supply  of 
water  {ox popping  or  sprinkling?  The  greatest  crowd  that  ever  assem- 
bled might  be  popped  at  a  small  fountain.  Besides,  however  many  the 
persons  were  who  went  to  his  baptism,  there  is  no  foundation  to  suppose 
that  immense  crowds  were  always  with  him.  The  account  itself  does 
not  imply  that  there  ever  was  at  any  time  an  immense  crowd.  All 
Judea  and  Jerusalem  are  said  to  be  baptized  by  him ;  but  they  are  not 
said  to  have  been  with  him  at  once,  or  even  in  crowds  at  any  one  time. 
Why  should  they  be  supposed  to  have  staid  with  him  any  considerable 
time? 

But  our  argument  on  this  passage  is  not  only  that  they  frequented 
the  banks  of  Jordan ;  but  that,  being  there  for  the  performance  of 
baptism,  they  went,  down  to  the  water.  Now,  if  an  army  encamped  on 
Glasgow  Green  in  a  time  of  war,  were  all  to  be  baptized  by  popping, 
would  they  bring  the  water  from  the  river,  or  would  they  all  go  to 
the  very  edge  of  the  water?  Why  did  Jesus  go  down  to  the  water, 
when  the  water  might  as  well  have  been  brought  up  to  him  ?  Does 
Mr.  Ewing  take  the  infants  to  the  edge  of  the  Clyde  when  he  is  popping 
them  ?  This  answer,  then,  is  but  an  evasion.  No  reason  has  ever  been 
given,  or  ever  will  be  given,  to  account  for  this  fact,  on  the  hypothesis 
of  baptizing  with  a  handful  of  water. 

Mr.  Ewing  observes  that  this  phraseology  is  confined  to  baptisms  out 
of  doors.  Very  true,  but  in  Mr.  Ewing's  baptism,  why  were  there  any 
baptisms  out  of  doors  ?  If  they  are  popped,  upon  with  a  handful  of 
water,  any  number  might  successively  be  popped  in  the  same  house  with 
equal  convenience  as  out  of  doors.  When  a  conveniency  for  baptism 
was  found  within  doors,  there  was  no  recourse  to  a  river  :  and  then  there 
could  be  no  going  down  nor  coming  up.  When  a  person  was  baptized 
in  a  bath,  the  baptizer  was  not  in  the  water  at  all. 

Mr.  Ewing  says,  "  Rebekah  went  down  to  the  well — and  came  up." 
"  Does  this  imply  that  she  immersed  herself?  No.  She  went  down  to 
the  well,  and  filled  her  pitcher,  and  came  up."  Very  true.  But  are  the 
cases  parallel?     Do  they  not  differ  in  the  very  point  in  which  it  is 


128  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

essential  for  Mr.  Ewing' s  argument  that  they  should  agree?  This  illus- 
tration favours  us,  and  refutes  Mr.  Ewing  himself.  If  Rebekah  went 
down  to  the  well,  she  had  a  good  errand  to  the  well — an  errand  that  is 
not  left  to  be  supplied  by  conjecture,  but  is  expressly  specified,  namely, 
to  fill  her  pitcher.  Can  Mr.  Ewing  show  such  an  errand  in  going  to  the 
edge  of  the  river  for  popping?  Even  the  idiot  that  followed  the  Armagh 
coach  to  Dublin,  to  see  if  the  great  wheels  would  overtake  the  little 
ones,  had  an  errand.  But  if  popping  is  baptism,  there  could  be  no 
errand  to  the  river  for  the  performance  of  the  ordinance.  "  Gideon," 
says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  brought  down  the  people  unto  the  water."  "  Was  it 
to  immerse  them  1  No;  it  was  to  give  them  an  opportunity  of  drinking." 
And  could  there  be  a  better  refutation  of  Mr.  Ewing  than  what  he  gives 
himself?  Gideon  did  not  lead  the  people  to  the  river  for  no  purpose. 
The  object  is  expressed.  Let  us  have  such  a  reason  for  John's  baptizing 
at  Jordan,  and  it  will  suffice  us.  Mr.  Ewing  entirely  mistakes  the  jet  of 
this  argument.  I  observe  also,  that  Matt.  iii.  6,  Mark  i.  5,  cannot  admit 
pouring  as  the  sense  of  baptize  Ebaptisanto  en  to  Iordane  cannot  be 
rendered  they  were  poured  in  Jordan,  nor  with  Jordan,  nor  in  Jordan- 
dale.  The  water  is  poured,  not  the  people.  If  the  clumsy  expression 
poured  upon  could  be  admitted,  it  is  not  to  be  found.  The  upon  is 
wanting.  The  people  were  poured  upon  in  Jordan-dale,  would  be  a  very 
awkward  expression.  Yet  shabby  as  such  an  auxiliary  would  be,  even 
that  is  not  to  be  found. 

Let  us  next  examine  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch,  Acts  viii.  36.  "  And 
as  they  went  on  their  way,  they  came  to  a  certain  water :  and  the  eunuch 
said,  See,  here  is  water;  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized?  And 
Philip  said,  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest.  And  he 
answered  and  said,  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.  And 
he  commanded  the  chariot  to  stand  still :  and  they  went  down  both  into 
the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch ;  and  he  baptized  him.  And  when 
they  were  come  up  out  of  the  water,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away 
Philip,"  &c.  This  is  as  correct  and  as  literal  a  translation  of  the  words 
as  can  possibly  be  made ;  and  surely  it  is  so  plain  that  the  most  illiterate 
man  can  be  at  no  loss  to  discover  from  it  the  mind  of  the  Lord  on  the 
subject.  I  have  written  some  hundred  pages  on  the  mode  of  this  ordi- 
nance, yet  to  a  mind  thirsting  to  know  the  will  of  God,  and  uninfluenced 
by  prejudice,  this  passage  without  comment  is  in  my  view  amply  suffi- 
cient. The  man  who  can  read  it,  and  not  see  immersion  in  it,  must  have 
something  in  his  mind  unfavourable  to  the  investigation  of  truth.  As 
long  as  I  fear  God,  I  cannot,  for  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,  resist  the 
evidence  of  this  single  document.  Nay,  had  I  no  more  conscience  than 
Satan  himself,  I  could  not  as  a  scholar  attempt  to  expel  immersion  from 
this  account.  All  the  ingenuity  of  all  the  critics  in  Europe  could  not 
silence  the  evidence  of  this  passage.  Amidst  the  most  violent  perversion 
that  it  can  sustain  on  the  rack,  it  will  still  cry  out,  immersion,  immersion! 

Philip,  in  preaching,  had  shown  that  believers  were  to  be  baptized 
immediately,  yet  the  eunuch  never  speaks  of  being  baptized  till  he  came 
to  water.  Now,  this  implies  immersion.  Had  a  handful  of  water  been 
sufficient,  this  might  have  been  found  in  any  place.     Had  it  been  even 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  129 

a  desert  without  water,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  eunuch  would 
have  a  supply  of  water  with  him. 

When  they  came  to  the  water,  instead  of  sending  down  one  of  the 
retinue  to  bring  up  a  little  water,  they  went  down  to  the  water.  Mr. 
Ewing  supposes  that  our  argument  is  founded  on  the  mere  going  down 
and  coming  up.  But  it  is  upon  the  circumstance  that  no  reason  can  be 
given  for  the  going  down  but  the  immersion.  What  would  take  them 
to  the  water,  when  the  water  could  be  more  conveniently  brought  to 
them? 

But  they  not  only  went  down  to  the  water ;  they  went  into  the  water. 
What  would  take  them  into  the  water,  if  a  handful  of  water  would 
suffice? 

Let  it  be  observed,  also,  that  there  is  something  very  peculiar  in  the 
account  of  their  going  into  the  water.  It  is  not  only  said,  "  they  went 
into  the  Avater ;"  our  attention  is  fixed  on  the  fact  that  they  both  went 
into  the  water.  This,  we  might  think,  would  suffice.  Yet  the  Holy 
Spirit  marks  the  circumstance  still  more  precisely.  He  adds,  both  Philip 
and  the  eunuch.  Can  any  one  imagine  that  such  a  precision,  such 
an  apparent  redundancy  of  expression,  is  not  designed  to  teach  some- 
thing that  the  Spirit  of  Inspiration  foresaw  would  be  denied?  Had  the 
water  been  deep  enough  at  the  edge,  the  eunuch  only  might  have  been 
in  the  water.  But  in  this  case  both  the  baptizer  and  the  baptized  went 
into  the  water.  Now,  this  determines  that  the  preposition  eis  must  be 
rendered  into,  and  not  unto,  as  Mr.  Ewing  would  have  it.  Had  the 
account  related  merely  to  the  going  down  to  the  edge  of  the  water,  there 
would  be  no  use  in  saying  that  they  both  went  down.  Could  it  be  neces- 
sary to  inform  us  that  Philip,  the  baptizer,  went  to  the  place  of  baptism 
as  well  as  the  person  to  be  baptized?  What  would  take  the  one  down 
without  the  other  ?  There  is  good  reason,  however,  to  inform  us  that 
they  both  went  into  the  water ;  because,  in  certain  circumstances,  it  would 
have  been  necessary  only  for  one  of  them  to  be  in  the  water ;  and  the 
relation  of  the  fact  takes  away  the  ground  of  perversion. 

It  is  not  only  said  that  they  went  into  the  water,  but  their  return  is 
called  a  coming  up  out  of  the  water.  They  could  not  come  out  of  the 
water,  if  they  had  not  been  in  it.  This  is  more  precise  than  the  account 
of  our  Lord's  baptism.  There  it  is  said  that  he  came  upfro?n  the  water. 
Here  it  is  out  of  the  water. 

Let  us  now  see  how  Mr.  Ewing  attempts  to  evade  the  evidence  of  this 
passage.  Let  my  readers  put  their  invention  to  work,  and  try  what  they 
can  think  of  to  darken  this  evidence.  Mr.  Ewing,  I  engage,  will  go 
beyond  them.  His  ingenuity  is  unparalleled.  He  destroys  our  doctrine 
even  by  demonstration.  Demonstration  !  Ay,  demonstration  !  Jesus 
is  said,  Matt.  iii.  16,  to  have  gone  up  from  the  water,  not  out  of  the 
water  as  our  version  renders  it.  "  Now,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  it  surely 
will  not  be  said  that  Philip  had  any  occasion  to  go  farther  with  the 
Ethiopian  nobleman  than  John  did  with  our  Saviour,  in  order  to  the 
administration  of  baptism.  It  is  reasonable,  then,  to  understand  the  eis 
and  the  ck  of  Acts  viii.  38,  39,  as  signifying  precisely  what  is  indicated 
by  the  apo  of  Matt.  iii.  16."    Now,  is  not  this  demonstration?    I  may  as 

17 


130  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

well  think  to  pierce  the  divine  shield  of  Achilles  as  this  argument.  But 
I  will  strike.  Truth  is  stronger  than  sophistry.  The  helmet  of  Goliath 
could  not  resist  the  pebble  from  a  sling.  I  deny  the  first  principle  on 
which  this  argument  is  founded.  It  is  taken  for  granted  that  apo  can 
reach  no  farther  than  the  edge  of  the  water.  Now,  while  I  admit  that 
this  is  all  that  is  necessarily  imported  in  this  preposition,  I  contend  that 
it  can  apply  to  the  centre  of  the  water,  or  even  the  farther  edge  of  the 
water,  as  well  as  the  edge  on  this  side.  Apo  signifies  the  point  of 
departure  from  an  object,  but  that  point  may  be  in  any  part  of  the  object 
to  which  there  is  access.  Whether  the  point  of  departure  be  the  edge 
or  the  centre,  or  the  nearer  or  the  farther  edge,  depends  not  on  the  word, 
but  on  the  circumstances,  or  other  information.  If  the  point  of  depar- 
ture be  an  impenetrable  object,  it  must  be  from  the  edge ;  but  if  the 
object  be  penetrable,  the  departure  may  be  from  any  part  in  it.  If  a 
fowl  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  river,  or  in  the  middle  of  it,  takes  wing, 
and,  flying  across,  alights  on  a  hill,  we  say,  it  flew  from  the  river,  just 
the  same  as  if  it  had  commenced  its  flight  on  this  side.  This  is  the 
distinction  between  apo  and  ck.  The  former  denotes  the  point  of  depar- 
ture, in  whatever  part  of  the  object  that  point  is  found ;  the  latter  always 
supposes  that  the  point  of  departure  is  within  the  object.  Of  course  apo 
cannot  serve  us  in  Matt.  iii.  16,  but  as  little  can  it  injure  us.  It  is 
indefinite  as  to  the  situation  of  the  point  of  departure.  In  this  case,  then, 
it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  Philip  and  the  eunuch  went  farther 
than  John  and  our  Saviour.  Though  apo  does  not  imply  that  the  latter 
were  in  the  water,  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  this,  if  other  evidence 
demands  it.  Besides,  it  might  be  on  some  occasions  necessary  to  go 
farther  into  the  water  than  on  this.  At  some  places,  baptism  may  be 
performed  at  the  edge ;  in  others,  it  may  be  necessary  to  advance  to  the 
centre. 

But  if  apo  could  not  reach  one  inch  into  the  water,  I  should  find  no 
difficulty  in  refuting  Mr.  Ewing's  argument.  If  our  Lord  and  John  were 
in  the  water,  in  returning  they  must  have  come  from  the  edge  of  the 
water.  They  would  then  have  come  from  the  edge  of  the  water,  and 
from  beyond.  Though  the  account  commences  with  the  edge,  it  does 
not  deny  that  there  was  a  previous  point  of  departure.  When  I  say, 
this  friend  has  come  from  Edinburgh,  all  I  assert  is,  that  the  point  of 
his  departure  was  Edinburgh.  It  might  be  the  very  edge ;  but  it  might 
be  also  from  the  very  centre.  On  the  other  hand,  when  I  say,  my  friend 
is  out  of  Edinburgh,  it  expresses  that  he  was  within  the  city.  We  might 
also  fix  a  point  of  departure,  which  will  apply  only  to  a  certain  point, 
and  reach  no  farther.  Yet  this  will  not  deny  a  previous  point  of  com- 
mencement of  departure.  We  started  at  such  an  hour  from  Prince' s- 
street,  and  at  such  an  hour  we  arrived  in  Glasgow.  Now,  this  point  of 
departure  cannot  be  extended  an  inch,  yet  it  is  quite  consistent  that  we 
might  have  had  a  previous  point  of  departure  from  Duke-street. 

Though  I  have  thus  proved,  that  for  anything  to  be  found  in  apo,  our 
Lord  might  have  been  baptized  in  the  middle  of  Jordan,  yet  since  apo 
necessarily  implies  no  more  than  the  edge  as  the  point  of  departure ; 
since  we  are  not  otherwise  informed  that  John  and  He  went  into  the 


THE  MODE  OP  BAPTISM.  131 

water  previously  to  baptizing,  as  we  are  informed  with  respect  to  Philip 
and  the  eunuch,  I  think  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  John  the 
Baptist  usually  went  into  the  water  in  baptizing.  The  striking  differ- 
ence between  the  accounts  of  these  two  baptisms,  leads  me  to  conclude 
that  John  chose  some  place  on  the  edge  of  the  Jordan  that  admitted  the 
immersion  of  the  person  baptized,  while  the  baptizer  remained  on  the 
margin.  The  place  of  baptizing  the  eunuch  did  not  admit  this, — most 
providentially,  indeed,  because  it  affords  an  example  that  cannot  be 
plausibly  perverted.  If  the  above  distinction  is  well  founded,  there  is 
no  ground  for  the  jest,  that  John  the  Baptist  was  an  amphibious  animal. 
There  is  no  necessity  at  all  to  suppose  that  eis  and  ek  are  limited  in  Acts 
viii.  38,  39,  by  apo  in  Matt.  iii.  16. 

"I  am  far  from  saying,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "that  eis  does  not  often 
signify  into,  and  ek,  out  of."  And  I  am  as  far  from  denying  that  eis 
sometimes  signifies  unto.  Its  most  usual  signification,  however,  is  into  ; 
and  in  general  applies  when  the  thing  in  motion  enters  within  the  object 
to  which  it  refers.  There  are  instances,  however,  in  which  the  motion 
ends  at  the  object.  It  is,  therefore,  not  of  itself  definite.  But  it  is  evi- 
dent that  there  must  be  some  way  of  rendering  it  definite  in  each  of  its 
occurrences,  else  language  would  be  unintelligible.  We  are  not  to  sup- 
pose that  when  a  word  is  in  itself  indefinite,  we  are  at  liberty,  in  every 
occurrence  of  it,  to  understand  it  as  we  will.  The  sound  critic  is  able, 
on  all  occasions,  to  limit  it  by  the  connexion,  or  by  circumstances.  I 
observe,  then,  that  as  this  word  usually  signifies  motion  to  a  place  end- 
ing within  the  place,  so  it  is  always  to  be  understood  in  this  sense,  ex- 
cept circumstances  forbid  it.  I  believe  the  few  examples  in  which  the 
motion  does  not  end  within  the  object  towards  which  the  thing  in  motion 
is  directed,  are  all  of  this  kind.  They  are  such  as  cannot  cause  a 
moment's  hesitation.  But  if  it  had  such  a  meaning  here,  it  would 
evidently  be  equivocal.  It  would  as  readily  lead  astray  as  inform. 
Agreeably  to  this,  in  the  very  examples  produced  by  Mr.  Ewing,  from 
Gen.  xxiv.  16,  Judges  vii.  5,  where  the  motion  ended  at  the  margin  of 
the  river,  this  preposition  is  not  used.  It  is  not  eis,  but  epi  ten  pegen ; 
not  eis,  but  pros  to  udor. 

This  observation  is  confirmed  by  the  circumstance,  that  eis  is  applied 
to  the  river  Jordan,  when  the  motion  ceases  on  the  banks,  in  an  instance 
that  can  create  no  doubt.  2  Kings  vi.  4  :  "  And  when  they  came  to  (eis) 
Jordan."  Here  the  object  of  the  journey  determines  the  extent  of  the 
meaning  of  the  preposition. 

But  I  utterly  deny  such  an  indefiniteness  in  the  meaning  of  ek.  In 
opposition  to  Mr.  Ewing's  assertion,  I  say  that  it  always  signifies  out  of. 
I  say  this  while  my  eye  is  upon  all  the  examples  alleged  by  him  and  his 
learned  friend. 

"  Now,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  wherever  eis  and  ek  correspond  to  each 
other,  the  extent  of  the  one  must  measure  the  extent  of  the  other.  The 
point  of  departure  to  return,  cannot  be  different  from  the  point  of  arrival 
in  going.  In  other  words,  if  eis  signify  to,  then  ek  must,  in  the  same 
connexion,  signify  nothing  more  than  from."  What  can  be  more 
mathematical  than  this?     It  is  as  clear  as  that  twelve  inches  and  a  foot 


132  THE  MODE  OP  BAPTISM. 

denote  the  same  measure.  The  demonstration  is  perfect,  if  the  axiom 
on  which  it  is  founded  be  granted.  The  demonstration  is  drawn  from 
the  hypothetical  proposition,  "  if  eis  signify  to."  But  I  deny  that  in  this 
instance  it  signifies  to.  Mr.  Evving  himself  admits  that  it  often  signifies 
into.  Why,  then,  is  it  taken  for  granted  that  it  cannot  so  signify  here  ? 
To  do  Mr.  Ewing  any  service,  eis  must  always  signify  to.  It  cannot  be 
employed  to  measure  ek,  if  it  is  itself  indefinite.  It  is  very  true  that 
the  progress  into  the  water  cannot  be  less  than  the  progress  out.  All 
depends  on  the  distance  advanced.  Now,  though  eis  might  be  used,  if 
the  advance  was  only  to  the  margin ;  yet  as  it  can  be  used,  if  the  ad- 
vance were  to  the  centre,  it  cannot  restrain  ek  to  its  own  lowest  extent. 
On  the  other  hand,  I  will  reverse  the  demonstration,  on  the  principle 
that  ek  always  signifies  out  of,  which  I  will  prove.  If  ek  always  signifies 
out  of,  as  one  of  these  prepositions,  when  they  correspond  to  each  other, 
must  measure  the  other,  then,  though  eis  is  in  itself  indefinite,  ek  ren- 
ders it  definite  in  this  instance.  As  ek  signifies  out  of,  eis  must  here 
signify  into.  Now,  I  defy  ingenuity  to  refute  my  demonstration.  If 
an  elastic  chain  is  twelve  inches  at  the  stretch,  but  only  ten  when 
relaxed ;  and  if  the  same  measure  is  called  a  foot,  in  the  same  connexion, 
then  we  are  to  make  the  foot  determine  the  extent  of  the  chain,  in  the 
instance  referred  to,  and  not  the  chain  to  determine  the  number  of 
inches  in  the  foot.     The  definite  must  limit  the  indefinite. 

Dr.  Wardlaw  concurs  with  Mr.  Ewing,  in  thinking  that  nothing  can 
be  learned  from  en,  and  eis,  and  ek,  the  prepositions  usually  construed 
with  baptizo.  "It  is  truly  surprising,"  says  he,  "  that  so  much  stress 
should  be  laid  on  the  frequently  vague  import  of  a  Greek  preposition." 
I  ask  Dr.  Wardlaw,  what  preposition  in  any  language  is  perfectly 
univocal  ?  Are  there  many  words  of  any  part  of  speech,  except  those 
expressive  of  mode,  which  are  perfectly  univocal?  Are  the  above 
prepositions  more  vague  than  the  prepositions  that  correspond  to  them 
in  our  language?  Does  it  follow  from  a  word's  having  two  significa- 
tions, that  no  stress  can  be  laid  on  itself,  in  determining  on  the  evidence 
of  its  meaning  in  any  particular  situation?  If  a  word  is  sometimes 
used  in  a  sense  different  from  its  usual  one,  are  we  at  liberty  to  under- 
stand it  in  such  unusual  signification  at  random,  as  often  as  it  may  suit 
our  argument  ?  Were  this  the  case,  every  sentence  we  utter  would  be 
a  riddle.  Every  time  we  open  our  lips,  we  use  words  which  are  as 
vague  as  any  Greek  prepositions,  yet  the  most  ignorant  are  not  misled 
by  the  circumstance.  It  is  only  when  the  observation  applies  to  dead 
languages,  that  it  imposes  on  those  who  do  not  trace  arguments  to  first 
principles.  En  may  sometimes  be  translated  with;  but  there  must  be 
laws  that  regulate  this  matter,  else  human  language  could  not  be  suffi- 
cient for  testimony.  Eis,  in  rare  cases,  may  be  translated  unto;  but 
if  this  will  justify  us  in  assigning  this  meaning  to  it  when  it  suits  our 
purpose,  nothing  could  be  definitely  expressed  in  human  speech.  Yet 
this  is  the  resource  of  Dr.  Wardlaw,  in  evading  the  evidence  of  immer- 
sion ; — a  resource  which,  if  used  with  respect  to  English,  would  expose 
the  critic  to  derision.  I  have  pointed  out  some  of  the  laws  that  deter- 
mine in  such  cases ;  and  whether  I  have  been  successful  or  not,  such 


THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM.  133 

laws  must  exist,  if  human  language  is  an  adequate  evidence  of  human 
thought.     This  I  hold  as  an  axiom. 

But  I  will  venture  to  appeal  still  farther  to  the  common  sense  of  my 
readers.   Admitting  all  that  is  demanded  for  this  supposed  vagueness,  is 
it  not  utterly  incredible  that,  with  respect  to  this  ordinance,  each  of 
these  three  prepositions  should  assume,  as  it  were  in  concert  to  deceive 
us,  its  most  unusual  signification?     Can  we  ascribe  such  a  miracle  of 
delusion  to  the  Spirit  of  truth  ?     Now,  that  in  is  the  most  usual  signifi- 
cation of  en ;  into,  the  most  usual  signification  of  eis ;   and  out  of,  the 
most  usual  signification  of  ek,  I  suppose  no  one  will  be  hardy  enough  to 
deny.     I  could  easily  prove  that  the  exceptions  to  this,  with  respect  to 
the  two  former,  are  much  fewer  than  they  are  generally  supposed ;  and 
when  I  come  to  Mr.  Ewing's  Appendix,  I  will  show  that,  with  respect  to 
ek,  there  is  no  exception  at  all.     But  I  am  here  taking  for  granted  all 
that  our  opponents  demand ;    and  allowing  the  vagueness  to  be  as  great 
as  they  suppose,  is  it  not  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  Holy  Spirit  would 
use  the  three  prepositions  all  in  an  unusual  sense,  when  there  were  other 
prepositions   better   suited   to   the  purpose  ?     The   absurdity   is   still 
heightened  by  the  consideration  that  these  prepositions  are  used  in  con- 
nexion with  a  verb,  which  the  hardiest  of  our  opponents  cannot  deny  as 
importing,  at  least  in  one  of  its  senses,  to  immerse.     The  usual  sense  of 
the  whole  three  prepositions  is   in  our  favour :   the  verb  admits  our 
meaning,  even  according  to  Mr.  Ewing ;  but  according  to  the  great  bulk 
of  the  most  learned  of  our  opponents,  this  is  its  primary  meaning : 
judging,  then,  even  from  their  own  admissions,  is  it  credible  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  would  use  language  so  calculated  to  mislead  ?    Could  there 
be  any  reason  to  pitch  upon  such  phraseology,  except  to  deceive  ?     If 
pouring  or  sprinkling  had  been  appointed,  there  were  words  which  univo- 
cally  denote  these  meanings.    Why,  then,  should  the  Holy  Spirit  pass  by 
these  words,  and  pitch  upon  a  word  that,  according  to  our  opponents, 
has  perhaps  a  dozen  of  significations?     If  there  are  prepositions  that 
would,  in  their  usual  acceptation,  express  the  meaning  our  opponents 
attach  to  the  three  prepositions  in  question,  why  should  the  latter  be 
employed  in  an  unusual  sense?  There  never  was  a  greater  specimen  of 
Jesuitism,  than  that  which  Dr.  Wardlaw  here  charges  on  the  Holy  Spirit. 

But  this  mode  of  reasoning  carries  its  condemnation  in  its  very  face. 
If  the  controversy  were  in  a  language  of  which  we  were  entirely  ignorant, 
and  on  a  subject  to  which  we  were  utterly  strangers,  we  might  hold  it  as  a 
self-evident  truth,  that  the  man  who  screens  himself  under  the  vagueness 
of  words,  and  argues  at  random,  on  the  supposition  that  on  any  emer- 
gency it  is  fair  to  take  a  word  in  any  signification  that  in  any  situation 
he  may  find  attached  to  it,  has  either  a  bad  cause,  or  does  not  know  how 
to  defend  a  good  one.  As  no  one  will  charge  our  opponents  with  the 
latter,  the  cause  which  they  defend  must  be  incapable  of  a  sound  defence. 

But  after  we  have  beaten  them  down  the  hill,  and  pushed  them  to  the 
very  verge  of  the  stream ;  nay,  after  we  have  driven  them  into  Jordan 
up  to  the  chin,  these  obstinate  enemies  of  immersion  will  not  pop  down 
their  heads  into  the  water,  but  will  pop  the  water  upon  the  head.  Both 
of  these  writers  declare  resolutely  that  they  would  not  surrender,  even 


134  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

in  the  midst  of  the  river.  "  Let  it  be  supposed,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  that 
the  baptizer  led  the  person  to  be  baptized,  not  only  to  the  water,  but 
into  it:  the  question  returns,  what  did  he  do  with  him  there?"  Dr. 
Wardlaw  also  expressly  refuses  to  submit,  even  were  it  granted  "  that 
the  parties  were  in  Jordan  when  the  ceremony  was  performed."  What 
shall  I  do  now?  Of  what  service  is  all  my  criticism?  Can  I  put  them 
under  the  water  either  by  the  verb  or  by  its  syntax?  I  will  first  try  to 
discipline  them  a  little  with  common  sense ;  for  if  I  cannot  succeed  on 
this  point,  it  is  in  vain  to  appeal  to  the  laws  of  language.  I  admit  that 
it  is  possible  to  sprinkle  or  pour  water  upon  a  person  in  a  river,  as  well 
as  in  a  church  or  parlour.  But  in  the  awful  presence  of  the  living  God, 
I  ask  Mr.  Ewing  and  Dr.  Wardlaw  if  they  think  it  credible  that  John 
the  Baptist  would  take  into  the  water  the  multitudes  whom  he  baptized, 
for  the  purpose  of  pouring  a  little  on  their  faces  ?  If  they  can  answer 
this  in  the  affirmative,  I  have  no  more  to  say  on  that  point.  I  must 
appeal  to  the  common  sense  of  mankind.  What  other  purpose  could 
there  be  in  going  into  the  water,  but  to  be  immersed  ?  Turks,  Jews,  and 
Infidels,  declare  your  judgment.  Every  other  mode  might  have  been 
observed,  with  much  greater  convenience,  out  of  the  water  than  in  it. 
I  know  it  is  possible  for  Mr.  Ewing  and  Dr.  Wardlaw  to  take  every 
infant  baptized  by  them,  with  all  the  nurses  and  attendants,  down  into 
the  river  Clyde,  and  pop  them  there ;  but  verily,  if  I  read  in  the  news- 
papers, that  they  did  this,  I  should  be  convinced  that  they  were  deranged. 
Madness  or  fanaticism  would  universally  be  supposed  to  be  the  cause. 
Upon  such  evidence,  could  the  Lord  Chancellor  refuse  an  act  of  lunacy 
against  them?  And  shall  they  ascribe  to  John  the  Baptist  and  the 
Saviour,  conduct  that  in  Great  Britain  would  prove  lunacy  ?  It  is  use- 
less to  reason  with  persons  so  obstinate.  Neither  argument  nor  criticism 
can  reach  such  extravagance.  As  Dr.  Campbell,  in  reference  to  the 
class  of  first  principles  which  he  ascribes  to  common  sense,  says,  that  to 
deny  them,  does  not  imply  a  contradiction, — it  implies  only  lunacy ;  so 
to  assert  that  John  the  Baptist  led  the  multitudes  into  the  river  Jordan, 
in  order  to  pour  a  little  water  into  their  faces,  does  not  imply  an  impos- 
sibility,— it  implies  only  that  they  were  all  mad. 

However,  as  I  have  now,  by  their  own  admission,  got  them  into  the 
water,  I  will  try  to  force  them  under  it,  before  I  let  them  out.  Dr. 
Wardlaw  asserts  that  eis  tonlordanen  maybe  translated  at  or  in  Jordan. 
To  this  I  reply,  1.  At  and  in  are  not  senses  of  eis.  2.  There  is  no 
reason  to  bring  them  to  the  water,  or  place  them  in  the  water,  but  the 
intention  of  immersing  them  into  the  water.  3.  A  multitude  of 
examples  might  be  produced,  in  which  eis  is  construed  with  baptizo,  in 
which  the  signification  is  without  doubt  immersion.  I  appeal  to  those  I 
have  given.  No  one  example  can  be  produced  in  which  eis  in  construc- 
tion with  the  verb,  signifies  either  at  or  in.  The  phrase,  then,  cannot 
be  supposed  to  have  a  signification  here  different  from  its  usual  signifi- 
cation ;  and  which  there  is  no  single  proof  that  it  ever  has.  I  will  force 
them  down,  then,  by  the  verb  and  the  preposition  separately,  and  by 
both  united  as  a  phrase.  I  defy  them  to  produce,  out  of  Greek 
literature,  one  instance  in  which  the  phrase  has  the  meaning  contended 
for  by  them. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  135 

Dr.  Wardlaw  partakes  with  Mr.  Ewing  in  his  astonishment,  that  an 
argument  should  be  drawn  from  going  down  and  coming  up.  If  my 
astonishment  had  not  been  entirely  exhausted  with  the  Jordan  scene,  I 
should  be  mightily  astonished  that  both  these  writers  so  far  mistake  the 
jet  of  the  argument.  The  going  down  and  the  coming  up  are  not 
supposed  to  refer  to  the  act  of  immersion.  As  pouring  water  into  a  bath 
is  necessary  in  order  to  immersion  in  the  bath ;  so  going  down  to  the 
river  is  necessary  in  order  to  dipping  in  the  river.  We  do  not  confound 
the  going  into  the  water  with  the  immersion  in  the  water.  This  would 
show  the  same  want  of  discrimination  that  confounds  pouring  with 
baptism. 

But  Mr.  Ewing  overturns  all  our  arguments  and  criticisms  with  a 
difficulty.  "If  the  act  of  baptizing,"  says  he,  "had  consisted  of  immers- 
ing the  subject  in  water,  there  would  surely  have  been  some  allusion  to 
the  lowering  of  his  body  in  that  supine  direction,  which  is,  I  believe, 
commonly  observed  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  it  under  the  surface : 
some  allusion,  also,  to  that  stooping  attitude,  which  is  at  the  same  time 
necessary  on  the  part  of  the  immerser.  But  there  is  nothing  of  this 
kind  to  be  found  in  all  the  Scriptures,  either  in  the  accompanying 
phraseology,  or,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  name  of  the  ordinance  itself." 
Now,  if  the  surely  was  a  real  surely,  the  conclusion  would  be  undeniable ; 
for  I  do  not  know  a  single  reference  of  the  kind  demanded.  But  what 
makes  this  surely  necessary  1  Why,  it  is  necessary  to  keep  Mr.  Ewing's 
theory  from  sinking,  but  this  is  its  only  necessity.  If  no  information  is 
given  about  the  way  of  putting  the  body  under  water,  then  no  part  of 
the  meaning  of  the  ordinance  depends  on  one  way  more  than  another. 
We  are  then  at  liberty  to  do  it  in  the  most  convenient  way.  But  this 
requirement  is  very  strange  in  one  who  maintains  baptism  to  be  a  pop- 
ping of  a  handful  of  water  out  of  the  cup  of  nature,  or  the  hollow  of  the 
hand,  upon  the  turned  up  face  of  the  person  baptized.  Each  of  these 
things  is  a  necessary  part  of  baptism,  yet  I  am  so  stupid  as  to  be  unable 
to  see  a  glimpse  of  any  of  them  in  the  Scriptures. 

I  shall  now  examine  the  example  in  Mr.  Ewing's  Appendix,  alleged 
to  prove  that  elc  sometimes  signifies  merely  from,  as  perfectly  synony- 
mous with  apo.  I  have  admitted  that  en  may,  in  certain  circumstances, 
be  translated  with,  and  that  eis  sometimes  denotes  motion  to  a  place, 
that  ends  on  this  side  of  the  object,  without  occasioning  any  confusion 
or  ambiguity.  But  I  have  denied  that  elc  is  ever  used  when  the  object 
departing  is  not  supposed  to  have  commenced  its  departure  within  the 
object  from  which  it  departs.  Now,  Mr.  Ewing's  very  learned  friend, 
who  writes  the  Appendix,  in  reply  to  some  observations  by  Dr.  Ryland, 
steadily  abides  by  his  first  position  ;  and  by  a  number  of  instances 
alleges,  with  the  utmost  confidence,  that  the  use  of  the  Greek  language 
proves  the  supposed  laxity  in  the  use  of  eh.  The  general  acquaintance 
of  this  gentleman  with  Greek  literature,  entitles  his  opinion  to  the 
highest  respect ;  and  I  am  willing  to  allow  him  to  be  in  all  respects  what 
Mr.  Ewing  represents.  I  take  the  utmost  liberty  in  exposing  false 
reasoning  and  false  criticism,  even  in  those  whom  I  respect.  God's  truth 
is  a  paramount  object,  and  whatever  tends  to  pervert  it  must  be  cut 
down.     The  extensive  reading  in  Greek  writers,  which  this  gentleman 


136  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

possesses,  is  a  qualification  of  indispensable  importance  to  a  critic;  and 
that  he  is  conversant  in  the  philosophy  of  language,  is  obvious  at  a 
glance.  I  stand  upon  ground  too  firm  to  make  me  fear  the  talents  of 
my  antagonist,  and  I  should  feel  ashamed  were  I  conscious  of  under- 
rating these  talents  through  dread  of  them.  No  man  unjustly  disparages 
the  abilities  of  his  opponent,  who  is  not  conscious  either  of  having  a  bad 
cause,  or  of  his  inability  to  defend  a  good  one. 

The  learned  writer  of  the  Appendix  says  :  "  The  truth  is,  that  though 
apo  and  ek  were  originally  distinct,  in  the  progress  of  the  language  they 
came  to  be  used  indiscriminately,  and  while  apo  encroached  on  the 
province  of  ek,  ck  in  return  usurped  part  of  the  territories  of  apo."  Now, 
on  the  very  face  of  this  observation,  I  pronounce  it  unphilosophical ;  and 
I  would  confidently  do  so,  had  the  assertion  respected  a  language  of 
which  I  do  not  know  the  letters.  It  is  contrary  to  the  first  principles 
of  language,  that  prepositions  appointed  to  express  different  relations, 
should  be  used  to  express  the  same  relation.  Were  this  the  case,  the 
prepositions  would  be  two  only  in  sound ;  one  of  them  would  cumber 
rather  than  enrich  the  language.  There  is  a  sense  in  which  one  word 
may  be  said  to  encroach  on  the  territories  of  another ;  that  is,  it  may  be 
used  in  a  situation  which  another  usually  fills.  But  this  is  not  properly 
an  encroachment.  So  far  as  it  properly  goes,  the  territories  are  its  own. 
The  territory  occupied  by  both,  belongs  exclusively  to  neither.  It  is 
common,  and  either  may  be  used  at  pleasure.  But  consistently  with 
this  joint  reign,  either  may  have  a  peculiar  territory,  into  which  it  is 
usurpation  in  the  other  to  enter.  Were  it  true,  according  to  the  learned 
writer,  that  apo  and  ek  at  random  usurp  each  other's  territories,  it  would 
be  impossible  for  criticism  to  ascertain  anything  from  their  use.  Lan- 
guage would  be  incapable  of  definite  meaning.  From  my  account  of 
them,  it  is  clear  that  in  a  vast  multitude  of  instances,  they  may  be  used 
in  the  same  place,  optionally.  But  even  here,  it  is  possible  to  discrimi- 
nate them.  Each  of  them  has  in  every  instance  its  own  distinctive 
meaning.  I  may  say  in  English,  this  friend  is  out  of  Glasgow,  or  from 
Glasgow,  yet  out  of  and  from  are  not  the  same.  The  one  expression 
denotes  that  the  point  of  departure  was  in  the  city ;  the  other  may  have 
its  point  of  departure  either  in  or  at  the  city.  There  are  cases  also  in 
which  the  English  preposition  could  not  be  used  in  the  same  situation. 
In  a  besieged  city,  the  expression,  "  this  soldier  has  come  out  of  the  city," 
is  very  different  from  "  this  soldier  has  come  from  the  city."  I  assert, 
then,  that  the  fact  that  these  prepositions  may  be  used  often  in  the  same 
situation,  is  no  evidence  that  they  have  not  their  characteristic  meaning; 
and  far  less  is  it  evidence  that  they  are  in  all  things  indiscriminate. 
While  they  have  a  common  territory,  each  has  a  province  of  its  own. 
Even  when  apo  is  used  where  ek  might  be  used,  there  is  this  difference, 
that  the  former  is  not  definite,  and  does  not  mark  the  idea  which  the 
use  of  the  other  would  have  marked.  I  call  the  attention  of  critics  to 
this  distinction  as  one  of  vast  importance,  and  one  which  has  been 
universally  overlooked.  It  has  been  hitherto  taken  for  granted,  that 
if  two  words  are  interchangeable  in  any  situation,  they  may,  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  critic,  be  supposed  interchangeable.     I  maintain  thai 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  137 

two  words  with  meanings  characteristically  distinct,  may  have  in  other 
things  a  common  province,  while  there  are  laws  to  ascertain  the  extent 
of  the  common  province,  and  to  limit  each  within  its  peculiar  boundary. 
I  maintain  even  farther,  that  in  the  common  province  each  expresses  its 
own  meaning.  They  reign  without  interference  even  over  the  common 
territory.  Now,  if  I  am  well  founded  in  these  observations,  they  will  be 
of  vast  advantage  in  ascertaining  definitely  the  import  of  language. 
Instead  of  being  a  nose-of-wax,  as  critics  in  general  have  made  the 
Scriptures,  temerity  will  not  be  able  to  deface  their  features. 

With  respect  to  the  prepositions  apo  and  ek,  though  they  may  often 
be  used  interchangeably,  yet  the  latter  always  implies  intusposition ;  the 
former  the  point  of  departure  in  general.  But  the  writer  of  the  Appen- 
dix has  alleged  a  number  of  examples  to  prove,  "  that  ek  may  be,  and 
often  is,  made  use  of  to  express  removal,  distance,  or  separation,  merely 
where  previous  intusposition  neither  was,  nor  could  be  in  view."  Now, 
if  his  examples  prove  this,  let  him  have  it.  That  none  of  them  do  so, 
I  am  quite  confident. 

His  first  example  is  from  Thucydides.  Speaking  of  a  promontory, 
he  says,  "  which  was  steep  from  the  sea,  and  not  easily  attacked  from 
the  land."  The  example  has  not  the  colour  of  opposition  to  our  doc- 
trine. Were  I  lecturing  on  the  passage  to  students,  I  should  remark  as 
a  beauty,  the  distinctive  import  of  ek,  which  this  writer's  criticism 
teaches  him  to  overlook.  The  promontory  is  supposed  to  rise  out  of  the 
sea  below,  as  a  tree  grows  out  of  the  ground.  The  imagination  views 
the  object  commencing  at  the  bottom  of  the  sea,  and  rising  a  vast  height 
above  its  surface.  Do  we  not  ourselves  speak  of  a  rock  rising  out  of 
the  ocean  ?  There  is  nothing  here  said  in  Greek,  but  what  we  ourselves 
say  in  English,  yet  out  of  with  us  is  never  from.  As  to  the  example 
alleged,  there  is  no  real  motion,  or  point  of  departure,  whether  apo  or  ek 
is  used.  The  point  of  departure  is  merely  in  the  view  of  the  imagina- 
tion. While  examples  of  this  kind  still  preserve  the  original  distinc- 
tion, yet  examples  most  decisively  to  the  point  must  be  taken  from  real 
motion,  and  a  real  point  of  departure.  It  is  with  these  that  apo  and  ek 
are  connected  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  The  writer  remarks  :  "  The 
historian  surely  never  meant  to  convey  the  idea,  that  the  steep  part  of 
the  rock  had  formerly  been  within  the  rock."  The  surely  is  granted, 
but  the  observation  is  surely  so  absurd  as  to  need  no  answer.  When  we 
say  that  "  a  rock  rises  boldly  out  of  the  sea,"  do  we  mean  that  the  top 
of  it  rose  from  the  bottom  ?  But  there  is  here  an  intusposition :  the 
rock  commences  below  the  water. 

But  if  we  are  able  to  manage  the  first  ek,  he  asks  us  what  we  will  do 
with  the  second.  This  he  thinks  altogether  refractory.  However,  it 
cost  me  no  more  trouble  than  the  first.  A  glance  discovers  its  bearing. 
"  Would  Dr.  R.  maintain,"  says  the  writer,  "  that  Thucydides  meant 
that  the  promontory,  if  attacked  on  the  land  side,  must  then  be  under- 
stood as  having  come  out  of  the  land?"  No,  indeed,  Dr.  R.  could  not 
make  such  an  assertion, — nor  is  any  such  assertion  needed.  It  is  not 
the  promontory  that  comes  out  of  the  land ;  it  is  the  assault  that  comes 
out  of  the  land.     When  attacked  on  the  land  side,  does  not  the  assault 

18 


138  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

come  from  the  interior  of  the  land  ?  I  am  surprised  at  such  an  obser- 
vation from  such  a  writer.  What  is  most  strange  is,  that  the  same 
question  might  as  well  be  asked  if  apo  had  been  used.  In  that  case, 
would  the  writer  suppose  that  the  promontory  was  represented  as 
coming  from  the  land  ?  The  promontory  is  not,  as  this  writer  absurdly 
supposes,  here  represented  as  the  point  of  departure,  whether  apo  or 
eh  is  used.  The  promontory  is  the  point  of  arrival.  The  assailants 
come  out  of  the  country  on  the  land  side,  and  direct  their  assault,  not 
from  the  promontory,  but  upon  it.  Never  were  witnesses  farther  from 
serving  the  cause  of  the  party  who  summoned  them. 

The  next  example  is,  "  The  road  from  Abdera  to  Ister."  I  say, 
literally,  "  the  road  out  of  Abdera  to  Ister."  The  road  is  supposed  to 
commence  within  Abdera.  Does  the  road  out  of  Edinburgh  to  Leith 
commence  at  the  extremity  of  the  city  ?  There  might  be  as  much  of  the 
road  within  the  city  as  without  it.     This  example  is  clearly  on  my  side. 

But  what  shall  1  do  with  Alexander's  mound  ?  Surely  I  cannot  bring 
it  out  of  the  continent.  Yes,  I  will  bring  a  machine  that  will  force  it 
out  of  the  land.  Let  us  see  the  words  of  the  author,  "he  resolved  to 
carry  up  a  mound  from  the  continent  to  the  city."  I  say,  literally, 
"  out  of  the  continent."  "But,"  says  the  writer,  "  the  rampart  never 
had  been  within  the  continent,  but  merely  commenced  at  it."  I  say 
the  rampart,  according  to  Arrian,  commenced  within  the  continent. 
The  point  of  commencement  was  not  without  the  land,  but  within  it. 
As  the  foundation  of  a  house  is  more  secure  when  it  commences  under- 
ground, so  a  mound  is  more  secure  when  it  commences  within  the  land. 
I  was  not,  it  is  true,  present  on  the  occasion  when  Alexander  com- 
menced this  work :  but  I  know  where  Arrian  fixes  the  commencement. 
We  could  say  that  the  mound  of  Edinburgh  runs  out  of  Bank-street 
into  Prince's-street.  The  point  of  commencement  is  within  the  street 
above,  the  point  of  ending  is  within  the  street  below.  Mr.  Locke,  in 
one  of  his  letters  to  Mr.  Molyneux,  speaks  of  his  letters  written  out  of 
Holland.  The  letters  were  written  in  Holland.  What  sort  of  a  critic 
would  he  be,  who  should  say  that  this  implies  that  Mr.  Locke  was  not 
in  Holland  when  he  wrote  the  letters?  Yet  this  is  the  principle  on 
which  many  criticise  on  dead  languages.  My  opponents  are  in  error  in 
their  canons  of  criticism. 

The  next  example  is, — "  a  line  is  said  to  be  drawn  from  the  pole  of 
a  circle."  "  It  is  impossible,"  says  our  author,  "  for  a  line  to  be  within 
a  point."  Very  true ;  and  did  not  the  writer  see  that  it  was  equally 
impossible  for  the  whole  line  to  be  at  a  point  ?  And  if  its  point  of 
commencement  could  be  at  the  edge  of  a  point,  might  it  not  also  be 
within  the  point?  This  is  the  thing  said.  The  line  is  supposed  to 
commence  within  the  pole.  The  author  adds  :  "  in  other  propositions 
of  the  same  book,  apo  is  made  use  of  to  denote  precisely  the  same  idea." 
Say,  is  made  to  fill  the  same  situation.  This  is  quite  in  accordance 
with  my  doctrine.  We  ourselves  do  the  same  thing  with  from  and 
out  of  yet  they  do  not  signify  precisely  the  same  idea. 

Another  example  is, — "  She  led  him  from  the  gate  to  the  inner 
apartment."     "  Though  he  came  from  the  gate,"  says  the  writer,  "  he 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  139 

could  never  be  supposed  to  have  come  out  of  it."  Certainly  not  out  of 
the  wood  or  metal  of  the  gates,  but  as  certainly  out  of  the  gates.  Who 
is  so  ignorant  as  not  to  know  that  gates  denote,  not  merely  the  gates 
strictly,  but  the  place  in  which  they  stand,  and  that  whole  assemblies 
are  said  to  meet  and  sit  in  the  gates?  We  speak  in  like  manner  of  a 
door.  He  stood  in  the  door — he  came  out  of  the  door — he  came  from 
the  door.  But  out  of  the  door  is  not  perfectly  the  same  as  from  the 
door.     There  is  not  the  shadow  of  difficulty  in  such  examples. 

Another  example  brought  by  this  writer  is :  "  Who  forming  men 
from  the  extremity  of  the  foot,  making  a  statue."  The  writer  remarks, 
"  forming  out  of  the  extremity  of  the  foot,  would  convey  either  no 
meaning  at  all,  or  a  very  absurd  one;  ek  in  this  passage  is  completely 
synonymous  with  apo."  To  suppose  that  the  upper  parts  of  the  statue 
proceeded  out  of  the  foot,  would  indeed  be  absurd.  And  to  suppose 
that  they  proceeded  from  the  foot,  would  be  no  less  absurd.  But  if 
the  meaning  is,  as  without  doubt  it  is,  that  the  foot  was  the  point  of 
commencement  in  the  making  of  the  statue,  it  may  as  well  be  said  that 
this  point  was  within  the  foot  as  at  the  foot,  and  that  the  work  com- 
menced out  of  the  foot  as  from  the  foot.  Nay,  it  seems  to  be  the  very 
intention  of  the  expression  to  include  the  foot ;  for  if  he  made  the  statue 
only  from  the  foot,  he  did  not  make  the  foot.  The  expression  is  not  only 
intelligible  on  the  supposition  of  the  peculiar  meaning  of  ek,  but  is  more 
definite  than  it  would  have  been  had  apo  been  used. 

The  next  example  alleged  is  from  the  Periegesis  of  Dionysius  :  "  From 
the  Sicilian  mountains  the  sea  is  extended  far  to  the  east."  "  No  one," 
says  the  writer,  "  I  think,  will  contend  that  ek  here  implies  anything  but 
the  point  of  departure, — certainly  it  was  not  meant  to  denote,  that  the 
sea  was  ever  within  the  mountains."  Nothing,  indeed,  but  the  point  of 
departure,  or  rather  the  point  of  commencement.  But  that  point  is 
within  the  mountains,  either  really  or  in  the  imagination.  Is  not  the  sea 
toithin  the  mountains  in  every  bay  formed  by  mountains?  What  is 
meant  by  "the  sea  within  Lybia?" — an  expression  used  by  Dionysius, 
a  few  lines  above  the  passage  quoted  by  this  writer.  But  in  this  place 
I  do  not  understand  the  point  of  commencement,  as  respecting  the  place 
where  the  sea  touches  Sicily,  but  the  place  of  the  spectator.  When 
viewed  out  of  the  Sicilian  mountains,  the  sea  of  Crete  extends  far  to  the 
east.  On  no  supposition,  however,  has  the  expression  any  appearance  of 
opposition  to  my  doctrine,  with  respect  to  the  distinctive  meaning  of  ek. 
Another  example  is, — "  Rising  from  her  seat."  "  Not  out  of  it,  cer- 
tainly," says  the  writer.  Yes,  out  of  it,  certainly,  say  I.  Thrones  or  chairs 
of  state  were  of  such  a  construction,  that  persons  were  said  to  sit  down 
into  them,  and  to  come  out  of  them, — just  as  we  should  say  that  a 
gentleman  comes  out  of  his  gig.  Indeed,  we  might  say  ourselves,  that 
the  old  man  rose  out  of  his  arm-chair.  This  is  a  most  unfortunate 
example  for  our  author.  The  phrase  in  Matt.  xx.  21,  is  elliptical ;  and 
its  explication  depends  on  a  knowledge  of  ancient  customs,  which  may 
not  now  be  attainable.  The  word  thrones,  or  seats,  or  places,  may  be 
understood,  and  from  their  construction  and  situation  the  application  of 
ek  might  have  arisen.     But  of  this  I  am  not  bound  to  say  anything. 


140  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

I  observe,  however,  that  in  some  way  the  idea  of  out  of  must  have  been 
implied,  because  ek  is  used.  Every  professor  of  Greek,  in  speaking  on 
these  phrases  to  his  pupils,  if  he  was  not  a  disgrace  to  his  chair,  would 
say,  "literally,  out  of  right  hand  (seats),  and  out  of  left  hand  (seats), — 
on  my  right  hand,  on  my  left  hand,  are  our  phrases,  but  they  are  not  a 
translation."  But  did  not  the  gentleman  perceive  that  these  phrases  are 
as  hard  to  be  accounted  for,  on  the  supposition  that  ek  signifies  from,  as 
on  the  supposition  that  it  signifies  out  of?  Could  we  say,  "  to  sit  from 
my  right  hand,"  more  than  "  to  sit  out  of  my  right  hand?"  If  it  is  said, 
that  the  point  of  the  sitting  commences  at  the  right  hand,  I  reply, 
that  it  may  also  commence  within  the  right  hand  places.  We  are  at 
liberty  to  supply  any  word  we  please,  for  it  is  evident  that  the  substantive 
to  which  dcxion  is  related,  is  not  hand.  It  is  possible  to  sit  within  right 
hand  places,  or  right  hand  seats. 

The  phrase,  from  my  youth,  has  no  difficulty.  The  commencing 
point  is  within  his  youth.  It  did  not  commence  in  the  outer  verge  of 
youth,  or  at  the  very  edge  of  youth,  but  within  it,  far  within  it.  Philo- 
sophically, then,  as  well  as  literally,  it  is  out  of  my  youth.  In  like 
manner,  from  the  beginning,  is  literally  out  of  the  beginning.  The  com- 
mencing point  is  supposed  to  be  within  the  beginning,  not  where  the 
beginning  ended.  He  knew  it  in  the  beginning.  The  distinctive  mean- 
ing of  ek  is  visible  even  in  these  phrases.  It  is  no  proof  of  the  contrary, 
that  in  some  of  them  we  have  no  idioms  to  correspond  to  them.  If  all 
languages  had  corresponding  phrases  perfectly  alike,  what  would  be 
meant  by  idiom?  There  is  not  one  of  the  phrases  alleged  by  this 
writer,  in  explaining  which,  a  Greek  scholar  would  not  say  "  literally 
out  of."  In  some  of  them,  our  idioms  may  be  from ;  the  Greek  idiom 
is  not  from,  in  any  of  them. 

I  have  followed  the  writer  through  all  his  examples,  and  have  wrested 
them  out  of  his  hands.  But  this  was  more  than  my  cause  required. 
There  is  not  one  of  the  examples  that  corresponds  to  the  subject  of  our 
debate.  Our  contest  respects  a  case  in  which  there  is  real  motion,  and 
a  change  of  position  from  one  point  to  another.  It  respects  departure 
and  arrival.  Now  there  is  no  example  to  the  purpose  in  which  there  is 
not  a  change  of  place.  The  preposition  ek  might  be  used  with  respect 
to  other  things  in  which  the  primary  idea  could  not  be  discovered ;  while, 
with  respect  to  real  change  of  place,  the  distinction  might  be  universally 
preserved.  But  there  is  not  one  of  the  author's  examples  that  respects 
cases  similar  to  the  case  to  be  illustrated.  Not  one  of  them  relates  to 
real  motion,  either  from  or  out  of.  These  are  the  examples  that  must 
decide  the  matter.  Though  I  could  not  analyse  one  of  the  examples 
brought  by  this  writer,  I  would  still  contend  that  ek,  as  signifying  point 
of  departure,  or  motion  from  one  point  to  another,  is  more  definite  than 
apo,  since  it  always  implies  that  the  point  of  departure  is  tcithin  the 
object,  and  not  without  it.  From  this  there  not  only  is  no  exception, 
but  there  is  no  colour  of  exception. 

I  conclude,  then,  with  all  the  authority  of  demonstration,  that  Philip 
and  the  eunuch  were  within  the  water,  because  they  came  out  of  it.  I 
have  already  observed,  with  respect  to  other  examples  in  which  baptizo 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  141 

occurs,  that  it  will  not  construe  with  the  signification  pour.  I  observe 
the  same  thing  with  respect  to  Acts  viii.  3S  :  "  What  doth  hinder  me  to 
be  baptized?"  It  could  not  be  translated,  "  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be 
poured  1"  It  is  not  the  baptized  person,  but  the  water,  that  is  poured  in  the 
observance  of  this  ordinance  by  pouring.  Philip  baptized  the  eunuch.  If 
the  word,  then,  signifies  to  pour,  it  was  the  eunuch  he  poured,  and  not  the 
water  on  the  eunuch.  Now  the  same  thing  may  be  observed,  with  respect 
to  all  the  passages  in  which  this  word  occurs.  Not  one  of  them  will  con- 
strue on  the  supposition,  that  it  signifies  to  pour.  The  same  thing  is 
true  to  a  certain  extent,  with  respect  to  sprinkle,  and  every  other  meaning 
that  has  been  given  to  this  word.  Some  of  the  passages  may  construe 
on  that  supposition ;  but  many  of  them  will  not.  I  need  not  waste  time 
in  going  over  all  the  examples,  and  applying  to  them  all  the  meanings 
that  have  been  given  to  the  word  in  question.  This  has  been  done  by 
many,  and  must,  at  a  glance,  be  obvious  to  all.  It  merely  may  be  stated 
as  a  canon,  that  whatever  this  word  signifies  with  respect  to  the 

ORDINANCE  OF  BAPTISM,  WILL  TRANSLATE  IT  IN  EVERY  PASSAGE  IN  WHICH 

it  refers  to  baptism.  There  can  be  no  exception  \M  this,  even  though 
it  should  be  supposed  to  admit  a  different  syntax,  in  other  meanings ;  yet, 
as  referred  to  the  same  ordinance,  it  must,  without  doubt,  have  the  same 
meaning.  This  canon,  then,  excludes  the  pretensions  of  pour  and 
sprinkle,  and  every  other  meaning  that  invention  has  given  to  it. 
Immerse  or  dip  is  the  only  word  that  can  stand  this  ordeal.  This  I  have 
shown  can  bear  the  test,  not  only  with  respect  to  this  ordinance,  but 
with  respect  to  every  instance  in  which  the  word  is  used.  Can  there 
be  any  rational  doubt,  then,  in  determining  on  the  pretensions  of  the 
different  claimants  ?  Let  the  unlearned  reader  prove  this,  by  running 
over  the  passages  in  which  the  word  is  found,  and  applying  the  various 
words  which  have  been  given  as  translations  of  the  original. 

The  reason  alleged,  John  iii.  23,  for  baptizing  in  a  particular  place, 
implies,  that  baptism  is  immersion.  "  And  John  also  was  baptizing  in 
iEnon  near  to  Salim,  because  there  was  much  water  there ;  and  they 
came,  and  were  baptized."  But  when  Mr.  Ewing  reads  this,  he  "  can 
see  nothing  concerning  immersion."  Strange,  indeed,  that  the  same 
object  should  have  an  appearance  so  different  to  different  eyes.  Mr. 
Ewing  sees  here,  with  every  one  else,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  assigns  a 
reason  for  John's  baptizing  in  iEnon,  and  that  this  reason  is,  the  circum- 
stance of  the  convenience  of  water.  As  to  my  purpose,  I  care  hot 
whether  it  is  translated  "  much  water,"  or  "  many  waters."  Does  not 
this  imply,  that  the  water  was  for  the  purpose  of  baptizing?  The 
people  came  there,  and  were  baptized,  because  of  the  suitableness  of  the 
place  for  baptizing.  This  is  the  meaning  that  undoubtedly  will  present 
itself  to  every  candid  reader,  who  has  no  system  in  his  mind  as  to  the 
mode  of  baptism.  Let  the  language  be  submitted  to  persons  utterly 
unacquainted  with  Christianity,  and  among  a  thousand  there  will  be 
but  one  judgment.  Instead  of  being  difficult  to  be  discovered  here,  I 
venture  to  say,  that  there  is  scarcely  any  mind  that  has  not  some  diffi- 
culty in  keeping  itself  from  seeing  it.  This  is  the  labour :  this  is  the 
difficulty.     A  person  having  made  up  his  mind  on  the  mode  of  baptism, 


142  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

when  he  comes  to  this  passage,  may  succeed  in  satisfying  himself  with 
some  view  of  the  matter  which  has  been  created  by  his  own  fancy;  but 
I  am  much  mistaken,  if  it  is  not  always  with  some  difficulty.  That  the 
water  was  for  the  purpose  of  baptism,  is  to  my  mind  the  very  testimony 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  When  I  say,  that  in  such  a  district,  there  are  many 
bleach-greens,  or  many  grist-mills,  because  there  is  there  a  fine  river, 
would  not  every  person  understand  that  the  water  was  necessary  for  the 
bleaching,  and  for  turning  the  wheels  of  the  mills?  What  would  be 
thought  of  the  critic  who  should  deny  this,  and  argue  that  the  water  was 
not  necessary  for  the  mills,  or  for  the  bleaching,  but  for  the  accommo- 
dation of  the  persons  who  are  employed  about  them  ?  Just  such  criticism 
is  it,  that  denies  that  this  passage  makes  the  water  here  mentioned, 
necessary  for  baptism ;  and  finds  out  some  other  use  for  the  water. 

But  if  Mr.  Ewing  will  not  see  what  these  words  so  evidently  imply, 
he  makes  ample  amends  by  his  quicksightedness  in  seeing  here  what  is 
not  here  at  all.  He  sees  here  "  a  plain  reason  why  two  large  companies, 
which  it  was  not  the  intention  of  God  ever  to  unite  together,  except  in 
the  way  of  gradual  transference,  should  nevertheless  have  been  attracted 
to  the  neighbourhood  of  each  other,  where  they  might  act  without  inter- 
ference, while  separately  engaged  in  making  the  same  religious  use  of 
water.''  Here  Mr.  Ewing  can  see  very  clearly,  that  the  water  referred 
to,  was  not  for  baptism,  but  for  the  Jewish  purifications.  He  sees  then 
what  is  neither  said  nor  suggested.  It  is  not  in  evidence  at  all,  that 
Jewish  purification  was  an  object  of  this  water.  Mr.  Ewing  sees  two 
large  companies.  I  cannot  see  one  large  company  in  the  passage,  nor 
in  all  the  history  of  John  the  Baptist.  Mr.  Ewing  sees  two  companies 
not  uniting.  I  see  no  such  thing  among  the  Jews.  Nor  can  I  see 
such  a  separation  between  the  disciples  of  John  or  of  Christ,  and  other 
Jews.  But  that  this  reason  exists  only  in  Mr.  Ewing's  imagination,  is 
clear  from  the  fact,  that  Jesus  went  every  where,  and  every  where  was 
attended  with  crowds  immensely  great.  I  care  not  what  were  the 
crowds  attending  John;  much  water  was  not  necessary  for  the  purpose 
of  accommodating  hearers.  This  invention  of  Mr.  Ewing  is  nothing 
better  than  that  of  his  predecessors,  who  employed  the  water  in  giving 
drink  to  the  camels. 

Mr.  Ewing  thinks  that  the  expression  refers  not  to  ^Enon  only,  but 
also  to  the  land  of  Judah.  If  there  were  such  a  plenty  of  water  in  all 
the  land  of  Judah,  it  would  be  no  loss  to  us.  But  it  is  as  plain  as  lan- 
guage can  be,  that  the  many  icaters  spoken  of  were  in  iEnon  only. 

Having  considered  the  syntax  and  connexion  of  the  word  baptizo,  I 
shall  next  proceed  to  ascertain  how  far  any  light  can  be  obtained  from 
the  Scripture  explanations  of  the  ordinance,  and  the  occasional  allusions 
to  it.  It  is  a  most  providential  circumstance,  that  the  mode  of  this 
ordinance  is  determined  not  only  by  the  word  that  designates  it, — by 
its  syntax,  and  words  in  construction  with  it, — but  also  by  direct  expla- 
nations. 

Section  XVI. — Evidence  from  the  Scripture  Explanations  of 
the  Ordinance. — Examination  of  Rom.  vi.  3. — The  apostle  Paul,  having 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  143 

strongly  and  fully  stated  salvation  to  the  guiltiest  of  men,  through  grace 
reigning  through  righteousness  unto  eternal  life  by  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord,  anticipates,  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  chapter  of  his  epistle  to 
the  Romans,  the  objection  that  in  every  age  has  been  made  to  his  doc- 
trine :  "  Shall  we  continue  in  sin,  that  grace  may  abound?"  He  refutes 
this  objection  by  the  fact,  that  from  our  union  with  Christ  by  faith,  we 
have  died  along  with  him.  And  that  we  have  died  along  with  Christ, 
he  proves  from  our  baptism.  "  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as 
were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death?"  Some- 
thing is  here  supposed  to  be  implied  in  baptism,  of  which  no  Christian 
should  be  ignorant;  and  that  thing  is,  that  all  who  are  baptized,  are  by 
that  ordinance  exhibited  as  dead  along  with  Christ.  To  be  baptized 
into  Christ's  death  is  not  merely  to  be  baptized  into  the  faith  of  his 
death,  but  of  our  own  death  with  him.  For  if  our  death  along  v/ith 
him  is  not  implied  in  being  baptized  into  his  death,  then  this  would  be 
no  proof  at  all  of  our  own  death.  But  it  is  our  own  death  with  Christ, 
that  the  apostle  is  proving  by  our  baptism  into  Christ's  death.  The 
third  verse  would  be  no  proof  of  wnat  is  asserted  in  the  second  verse,  if 
our  baptism  into  Christ  does  not  imply  our  death  in  his  death. 

"  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him,  by  baptism,  into  death."  As  in 
Christ's  death,  we  have  died  with  him;  so  in  baptism,  we  are  figuratively 
put  into  the  grave  along  with  him.  Words  cannot  more  plainly  teach 
anything  than  these  words  declare,  that  in  baptism  we  are  buried  with 
Christ.  Baptism,  then,  must  not  only  contain  a  likeness  to  burial,  but 
that  likeness  is  emblematical.  There  may  be  resemblance  between  two 
objects,  and  to  exhibit  that  likeness  in  words  is  a  beauty  in  language. 
But  if  the  likeness  is  merely  accidental,  it  is  only  a  figure  of  speech, 
and  can  teach  nothing.  To  found  an  argument  on  such  ground,  would 
be  the  extravagance  of  fanaticism.  Homer  compares  the  falling  of  his 
heroes  headlong  from  their  chariots,  to  the  diving  of  water-fowl.  But 
this  resemblance  is  merely  accidental,  and  the  victor  had  no  intention  of 
giving  an  emblem  of  diving;  nor  could  any  argument  be  grounded  on 
the  likeness.  When  a  person  dips  in  bathing,  he  might  be  said  to  be 
buried  in  the  water ;  and  there  would  be  as  good  a  likeness  in  this  to 
Christ's  burial,  even  as  in  baptism.  But  the  likeness  is  only  accidental, 
not  emblematical.  No  argument  could  be  drawn  from  this,  to  prove  a 
dying  with  Christ.  This  would  be  a  metaphor.  But  baptism  is  not  a 
figure  of  speech ;  it  is  an  emblematical  action.  The  likeness  is  inten- 
tional,-rand  the  action  performed  is  symbolical.  Were  it  not  so,  the 
apostle  might  as  legitimately  argue  from  the  bath  as  from  baptism.  This 
distinction  is  self-evident,  and  we  shall  find  that  it  is  of  decisive  import- 
ance. From  not  understanding  it,  some  have  said  that  we  have  as  good 
a  right  to  find  in  the  meaning  of  baptism,  something  corresponding  to 
planting,  as  to  burial.  Planting  is  a  metaphor ;  there  must  then  be  a 
likeness,  but  no  emblematical  import. 

"  That  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life."  Here  we  see 
that  baptism  is  an  emblem  also  of  the  new  life  of  the  Christian.  He 
dies  with  Christ  to  sin;  he  rises  with  him  to  a  new  life  of  holiness.  There 


144  THE    MODE    OP   BAPTISM. 

must,  then,  be  something  in  baptism,  that  is  calculated  to  be  an  emblem 
of  a  resurrection,  as  well  as  of  a  burial.  Immersion  is  a  mode  that 
answers  both ;  and  immersion  is  the  only  mode  that  can  do  so. 

"  For  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death, 
we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection."  In  our  baptism, 
then,  we  are  emblematically  laid  in  the  grave  with  Christ,  and  we  also 
emblematically  rise  with  him.  It  is  designed  to  point  to  our  own 
resurrection,  as  well  as  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  In  baptism,  we 
profess  our  faith  in  the  one  as  past,  and  in  the  other  as  future.  What 
simplicity,  what  beauty,  what  edification  is  contained  in  this  ordinance! 
How  have  all  these  been  overwhelmed  by  the  traditions  of  men !  How 
clearly  does  this  ordinance  present  the  truth  that  saves  the  soul !  How 
admirably  is  it  calculated  to  recall  the  mind  to  a  view  of  the  ground  of 
hope,  that  is  calculated  to  silence  unbelief!  How  is  it  that  a  vile  sinner 
can  escape  the  wrath  of  God,  and  obtain  eternal  life?  How  is  it  that 
Christ's  work  is  available  for  him?  Why,  when  Christ  paid  our  debt, 
we  ourselves  have  paid  our  debt,  for  we  are  one  with  Christ.  We  have 
died  with  Christ,  and  have  risen  with  Christ;  Christ's  death  is  our 
death ;  Christ's  burial  is  our  burial ;  Christ's  resurrection  is  our  resur- 
rection ;  Christ's  sitting  in  heavenly  places,  is  our  sitting  in  heavenly 
places. 

This  clear  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Mr.  Ewing  endeavours  to  set 
aside,  by  a  mode  of  criticism  certainly  the  boldest  and  most  violent  that 
I  recollect  ever  to  have  seen  from  the  pen  of  a  man  of  God.  The  gross- 
ness  of  the  perversions  of  those  who  know  not  God,  is  not  astonishing. 
The  extravagance  even  of  Neologists,  may  be  accounted  for.  But  that 
one  who  knows  and  fears  God,  should  take  such  liberties  with  his  word, 
is  more  than  I  was  prepared  to  expect.  Indeed,  there  is  nothing  more 
extravagant  in  Neologism,  than  in  the  manner  in  which  Mr.  Ewing 
explains  the  burial  of  Christ.  Had  I  been  informed  merely  of  the 
result,  without  knowing  anything  of  the  author,  I  should  have  at  once 
concluded  that  it  was  the  offspring  of  Neology.  But  the  character  of 
Mr.  Ewing,  as  well  as  the  document  itself,  gives  full  evidence  that  it  is 
the  work  of  sincerity.  Indeed,  while  I  must  say  that  it  is  one  of  the 
most  mischievous  perversions  of  Scripture  that  I  have  ever  met  from 
the  hand  of  a  Christian,  I  am  fully  convinced  that  the  author  considers 
that  he  has  conferred  an  important  benefit  on  the  world,  by  his  dis- 
covery in  criticism.  His  wild  conclusions  are  speciously  drawn  from 
premises  hastily  adopted,  and  utterly  unsound. 

He  begins  by  saying,  that  "  the  great,  and,  as  it  appears  to  me,  the 
only  original  reason  why  baptism  has  been  thought  to  imply  immersion, 
is  the  expression  which  occurs  in  Rom.  vi.  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12."  I  shall 
not  answer  for  the  dead,  but  for  my  own  part,  the  word  by  which  the 
ordinance  is  designated,  is  perfectly  sufficient  for  me,  without  a  particle 
of  evidence  from  any  other  quarter.  Yet  I  am  disposed  to  set  as  great 
a  value  upon  the  evidence  of  these  passages  as  any  writer  can  do.  I 
value  the  evidence  of  these  passages  so  highly,  that  I  look  on  them  as 
perfectly  decisive.  They  contain  God's  own  explanation  of  his  own 
ordinance.     And  in  this,  I  call  upon  my  unlearned  brethren  to  admire 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  145 

the  Divine  wisdom.  They  do  not  understand  the  original,  and  the 
adoption  of  the  words  baptize  and  baptism  can  teach  them  nothing. 
Translators,  hy  adopting  the  Greek  word,  have  contrived  to  hide  the 
meaning  from  the  unlearned.  But  the  evidence  of  the  passages  in 
question,  cannot  be  hid,  and  it  is  obvious  to  the  most  unlearned.  The 
Spirit  of  God  has,  by  this  explanation,  enabled  them  to  judge  for  them- 
selves in  this  matter.  While  the  learned  are  fighting  about  baptizo,  and 
certain  Greek  prepositions,  let  the  unlearned  turn  to  Rom.  vi.  4,  and 
Col.  ii.  12,  &c. 

Mr.  Ewing,  speaking  of  the  reasoning  of  the  apostle  in  this  passage, 
says :  "  He  then  infers,  that  since  baptism  has  so  immediate  a  reference 
to  the  death  of  Christ,  it  must,  by  consequence,  be  connected  also  with 
his  resurrection ;  and  that,  as  in  the  former  view,  it  teaches  the  regene- 
rated the  abandoning  of  the  old  life  of  sin,  so,  in  the  latter,  it  equally 
teaches  them  the  habitual,  increasing,  and  permanent  pursuit  and 
progress  of  the  new  life  of  righteousness."  By  no  means,  Mr.  Ewing. 
This  inference  is  not  legitimate.  Baptism  might  have  a  reference  to 
burial,  without  being  by  consequence  connected  with  his  resurrection. 
Has  not  the  Lord's  supper  an  immediate  emblematical  reference  to 
Christ's  death,  without  any  emblematical  reference  to  his  resurrection  ? 
These  two  things  are  quite  distinct ;  and  it  is  possible  for  an  ordinance 
to  represent  the  one,  without  representing  the  other.  The  Lord's-day 
is  a  memorial  of  Christ's  resurrection,  but  is  no  emblem  of  his  burial. 
If  there  was  nothing  in  baptism  that  is  fitted  to  be  an  emblem  of  resur- 
rection, baptism  does  not  become  an  emblem  of  resurrection  by  conse- 
quence from  being  an  emblem  of  burial.  But  baptism  is  here  explained 
as  an  emblem  of  resurrection,  as  well  as  of  burial ;  there  must,  therefore, 
be  something  in  the  emblem,  that  will  correspond  to  resurrection  as  well 
as  to  buriaJ.  There  is  such  a  thing  in  immersion,  but  there  is  no  such 
thing  in  pouring ;  nor  is  there  any  such  thing  in  applying  water  as  an 
emblem  of  sepulchral  rites.  This,  then,  overturns  Mr.  Ewing's  system 
altogether.  He  confesses  virtually  in  this  quotation,  that  the  apostle 
infers  that  baptism  is  connected  with  the  resurrection.  If  so,  as  there 
is  nothing  in  sepulchral  rites,  that  is,  in  washing  and  embalming  the 
dead,  that  corresponds  to  resurrection,  washing  and  embalming  the  dead 
cannot  be  the  burial  referred  to, — and  pouring  water  as  an  emblem  of 
washing  and  embalming  the  dead,  cannot  be  baptism.  Nothing  can  be 
more  decisive  than  this.  Indeed,  so  far  from  arguing  that  resurrection 
must  be  implied  in  baptism,  because  that  baptism  represents  Christ  as 
dead,  we  could  not  know  that  either  death  or  resurrection  was  referred 
to  in  that  ordinance,  had  not  inspiration  given  the  information.  It  is 
possible  that  an  ordinance,  performed  either  by  immersion  or  pouring, 
might  have  had  no  instruction  in  mode.  The  instruction  might  have 
been  all  in  the  water.  That  there  is  any  meaning  in  the  mode,  we 
learn  merely  from  the  inspired  explanation.  Here  Mr.  Ewing  takes  the 
half  of  his  edification  in  this  ordinance,  from  a  source  that  does  not 
contain  anything  on  the  subject.  There  is  nothing  in  the  emblem, 
according  to  his  view  of  it,  that  corresponds  to  a  new  life,  or  resurrec- 
tion.    Has   washing  the   dead    any  likeness  to   resurrection?     Have 

19 


146  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM 

sepulchral  rites,  or  embalming,  any  likeness  to  resurrection  ?  Mr. 
Ewing  was  so  tender  in  the  conscience,  that  he  scrupled  to  give  the 
name  to  this  ordinance  from  immersion,  if  it  also  denoted  emersion, 
though  these  two  things  are  necessarily  connected,  and  both  explained 
as  belonging  to  the  ordinance.  He  does  not  scruple  to  make  the  em- 
blem of  death,  an  emblem  of  life  by  consequence. 

"  It  is  a  common  remark,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  that  the  apostle  is 
treating  in  this  passage,  not  of  the  form  of  baptism,  but  of  its  object,  its 
design,  and  its  actual  effects."  Let  its  form  be  what  it  may,  this  pas- 
sage treats  of  its  object  as  known  from  its  form.  "  On  this  account," 
says  he,  "  many  are  of  opinion  that  no  inference  can  be  drawn  from  his 
language,  concerning  the  form  of  baptism  at  all."  No  inference  is 
necessary.  The  apostle  has  drawn  the  inference  himself.  We  could 
not  have  drawn  the  inference  which  the  apostle  has  drawn.  Had  not 
the  apostle  explained  this  ordinance,  we  should  have  had  no  right  to  do 
so.  But  even  if  baptism  had  not  here  been  explained  as  a  symbolical 
burial, — had  it  been  alluded  to  as  a  burial  merely  in  metaphorical 
language,  it  would  have  been  equally  decisive  of  form,  though  not  of 
meaning.  If  baptism  is  a  burial  merely  by  a  figure  of  speech,  there 
must  be  a  likeness  between  baptism  and  burial,  to  justify  that  figure. 

"  Perhaps,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  it  would  be  more  correct  to  say,  that 
he  is  here  treating  of  the  connexion  between  the  justification  and  the 
sanctification  of  Christians."  True — but  he  is  treating  of  these  things 
as  they  are  implied  in  baptism.  He  is  treating  also  of  more.  He 
incidentally  treats  of  the  resurrection  of  believers  as  implied  in  their 
baptism.  "  And  that  in  doing  so,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  he  makes  three 
distinct  allusions,  to  baptism,  to  grafting,  to  crucifixion."  He  makes  no 
allusion  to  grafting  at  all ;  and  whatever  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase 
planted  together,  it  refers  to  baptism.  Crucifixion  does  not  allude  to 
baptism. 

i  We  come  now  to  the  examination  of  Mr.  Ewing's  account  of  "  the 
scriptural  meaning  of  '  being  buried.'  "  Here  we  shall  find  the  mysteries 
of  the  critical  art.  By  a  learned  and  laborious  process,  Mr.  Ewing 
endeavours  to  prove  that  Christ  was  not  properly  buried  at  all ;  and 
that  burial  in  Scripture  is  not  burial,  but  washing  or  embalming  the 
dead.  Now,  on  the  very  face  of  this  allegation  it  contains  its  own  con- 
demnation. Burying,  in  the  Scripture  meaning,  must  be  the  same  as 
burying  in  the  common  meaning,  otherwise  the  Scriptures  are  not  a 
revelation.  This  is  a  canon — a  canon  which  is  self-evident.  If  the 
Scriptures  do  not  use  words  in  the  sense  in  which  they  will  be  under- 
stood by  those  who  speak  the  language,  they  do  not  instruct,  but  mis- 
lead. I  overturn  the  whole  system,  then,  by  taking  away  the  foundation 
on  which  it  rests.     It  assumes  what  is  not  true  in  any  instance. 

"By  burying,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "we  commonly  mean  the  lowering 
of  the  dead  body  into  the  grave,  covering  it  with  earth,  and  so  leaving  it 
under  ground."  This,  indeed,  is  in  general  our  way  of  burying.  But 
we  should  apply  the  term  to  burying  in  any  way.  We  should  say  that 
a  person  was  buried  in  a  vault,  where  he  would  lie  exactly  as  Christ  lay, 
—without  lowering,  without  a  covering  of  mould,  &c.     If  a  person  was 


THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM.  147 

deposited  in  all  respects  as  Christ  was  deposited  in  the  tomb,  we  should 
say  that  he  was  buried.  The  difference  is  merely  in  circumstances ;  the 
things  are  essentially  the  same.  Besides,  the  immersion  of  a  believer,  is 
equally  suited  to  all  kinds  of  burial.  No  part  of  the  figure  depends  on 
any  peculiarity  in  any  age  or  nation. 

"  In  Scripture,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  to  bury,  not  only  includes  all  the 
preparations  of  the  body  for  interment,  but  is  the  expression  used  in 
cases  where  our  method  of  interment  was  not  practised,  where  no  inter- 
ment followed  at  the  time,  and  where  no  final  interment  followed  at  all." 
Neither  in  Scripture  nor  any  where  else,  is  the  word  used  for  pre- 
paratory rites  alone,  or  where  the  body  was  not  truly  and  properly 
interred. 

What  does  Mr.  Ewing  mean  by  final  interment  ?  Does  he  mean  that 
Christ  was  not  finally  interred,  because  he  rose  on  the  third  day?  Then 
none  of  us  will  be  finally  interred ;  for  we  shall  all  rise  again.  Does  he 
mean  that  the  disciples  did  not  consider  him  as  truly  interred,  and  that 
they  designed  to  bury  him  better  ?  They  had  no  such  design.  They 
intended  to  cover  him  with  more  spices,  but  not  to  take  him  from  the 
place  where  he  was  buried.  He  was  as  truly  buried  as  if  he  had  been 
in  the  ground  till  the  resurrection.  What  does  Mr.  Ewing  mean  ? 
Does  he  deny  that  Christ  was  truly  buried  ?  If  he  was  not  buried,  the 
Scriptures  are  false.  And  if  he  was  truly  buried,  though  he  had  lain 
but  a  moment,  our  baptism  may  be  an  emblem  of  his  burial. 

But  it  seems  Mr.  Ewing  has  Scripture  proofs  for  the  meaning  that  he 
assigns  to  burial.  Let  us  then  take  a  look  at  these.  In  Gen.  i.  26, 
where  the  Hebrew  says,  they  embalmed  Joseph,  "  the  Septuagint,"  says 
Mr.  Ewing,  "  has  ethapsan,  they  buried  him."  Very  true.  But  does  this 
imply,  that  by  ethapsan  the  translators  understood  embalming?  No  such 
thing.  Had  they  used  the  word  in  this  sense,  they  could  not  have  been 
understood  by  those  who  spoke  the  Greek  language.  This  translation 
is  not  a  proof  either  that  the  Septuagint  understood  embalming  to  be  the 
meaning  of  burial,  or  that  they  did  not  understand  the  true  meaning  of 
the  original.  It  is  only  proof  of  what  occurs  in  this  translation  a 
thousand  times,  and  what  occasionally  occurs  in  every  translation, 
namely,  careless  and  loose  rendering.  Their  text  said,  he  was  embalmed: 
they  content  themselves  with  saying,  he  was  buried. 

"  The  rites  of  burial  were,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  from  the  very  com- 
mencement, a  proof  that  the  attending  friends  had  ascertained  the  fact 
of  the  decease."  Indeed,  it  is  obvious  enough,  that  they  would  not  com- 
mence these  rites  till  after  the  death  of  the  person ;  but  these  rites  never 
were  designed  as  proof  of  this.  Above  all,  the  Scriptures  do  not 
require  such  a  mode  of  ascertaining  the  fact  of  decease.  He  adds,  "  and 
that  among  all  believers  of  revelation,  the  zeal  and  the  solemnity  with 
which  these  rites  have  ever  been  performed,  ought  to  be  considered  as 
the  effect,  not  merely  of  personal  attachment,  but  of  religious  principle, 
and  particularly  of  the  hope  that  God  will  raise  the  dead."  Whatever 
may  have  been  the  origin  of  these  rites,  nothing  can  be  more  certain 
than  that  they  were  used  by  persons  who  had  no  notion  of  resurrection, 
— nay,  by  many  who  denied  it.    Above  all,  these  rites  were  not  a  Divine 


148  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

appointment  for  reminding  of  the  resurrection.  Nothing  can  be  built  on 
this. 

"  It  is  our  happiness  to  know,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  that  our  blessed 
Saviour  never  was  finally  interred."  By  finally  interred  here,  Mr.  Ewing 
must  mean  that  he  was  raised  again,  and  did  not  lie  like  the  other  dead. 
For,  as  far  as  concerns  our  salvation  and  comfort,  he  might  as  well  have 
been  kept  in  a  common  grave  for  the  period  of  three  days,  as  have  been 
buried  in  a  rock.  But  may  he  not  have  been  truly  buried,  though  he 
had  risen  in  a  moment  after  being  deposited? 

"  Preparations  of  his  body  for  burial  were  made,"  says  Mr.  Ewing, 
"  both  by  anticipation,  and  after  the  event  of  his  death  had  taken  place. 
In  both  cases  they  are  called  '  his  burial.'  "  How  can  Mr.  Ewing  say 
so?  The  preparatory  rites  are  never  called  burial.  The  passages 
referred  to  have  not  the  smallest  appearance  of  confounding  embalming 
with  burying.  John  xii.  3  represents  Mary  not  as  burying  our  Lord  by 
the  act  of  anointing  him,  but  as  having  anointed  him  as  preparatory  for 
burial.  She  anointed  him  by  anticipation ;  but  she  did  not  bury  him  by 
anticipation.  Is  it  said  that  she  buried  him?  The  woman,  Matt.  xxvi.  12, 
is  represented  as  doing  what  she  did,  not  to  bury  him,  but  to  embalm 
him,  or  prepare  him  for  burial.  She  did  to  him,  when  alive,  what  is 
usually  done  to  persons  after  death.  She  embalmed  him  by  anticipation. 
Entaphiazo  is  used  for  embalming,  but  thapto  never. 

"  After  our  Lord  had  given  up  the  ghost,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "the  rites 
of  burial  were  renewed  by  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  and  Nicodemus."  This 
was  strictly  and  properly  the  embalming.  But  is  this  called  a  burial  ? 
Had  they  done  nothing  but  this,  Jesus  would  not  have  been  buried ;  and 
the  Scriptures  would  not  have  been  fulfilled.  He  adds,  "  and  were 
intended  to  have  been  finished  by  the  women  which  came  up  with  our 
Lord,"  &c.  These  rites,  then,  were  not  finished ;  and  if  they  are  burial, 
Jesus  was  not  buried. 

Mr.  Ewing,  then,  has  utterly  failed  in  his  attempt  to  prove,  that  in 
Scripture,  preparatory  rites  are  called  burial.  Not  one  of  his  examples 
has  a  shadow  of  proof.  I  will  now  make  some  general  remarks  on  this 
strange  opinion. 

First,  The  word  thapto  signifies  to  bury,  and  is  never  applied  exclu- 
sively to  preparatory  rites.  This  is  as  true,  with  respect  to  Scripture 
use,  as  it  is  with  respect  to  the  use  of  the  classics.  Mr.  Ewing  gives  a 
meaning  to  this  word,  not  confirmed  by  use,  but  merely  to  suit  his 
purpose.  In  like  manner  sunthapto,  the  word  here  used,  signifies  to 
bury  one  thing  or  person  with  another, — never  to  embalm  one  thing  with 
another.     The  opinion,  then,  does  not  deserve  even  a  hearing. 

Secondly,  Thapto  applies  to  all  kinds  of  burial.  No  doubt,  originally, 
in  all  countries,  burial  was  by  digging  a  pit,  and  covering  the  dead  with 
the  mould.  But  when  repositories  were  built  for  the  dead,  or  were 
scooped  out  of  rocks,  the  same  word  was  still  used.  This,  in  fact,  is  the 
case  with  our  own  word  bury.  We  apply  it  to  the  depositing  of  a  body 
in  a  vault,  as  well  as  the  common  burial.  This  process  in  enlarging  the 
meaning  of  words,  may  be  exemplified  in  a  thousand  words.  The  idea 
that  is  common  to  all  burying,  is  that  of  covering  the  dead,  or  sur- 


THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  149 

rounding  them  with  something  to  keep  them  from  violation.  It  is  quite 
a  waste  of  time,  then,  for  Mr.  Ewing  to  discuss  the  situation  and  pecu- 
liarities of  our  Lord's  sepulchre.  He  was  buried  as  many  others  are 
buried ;  and  to  this  burial  there  is  a  likeness  in  our  baptism,  when  we 
are  buried  in  water. 

Thirdly,  Burial  and  embalming  are  often  distinguished  as  quite  dif- 
ferent things.  Josephus  speaking  of  the  magnificent  manner  in  which 
Herod  buried  Aristobulus,  says,  "And  as  for  his  funeral,  that  he  took 
care  should  be  very  magnificent,  by  making  great  preparation  of  a  se- 
pulchre to  lay  his  body  in,  and  providing  a  great  quantity  of  spices,  and 
burying  many  ornaments  with  him,"  &c.  Here  the  embalming  and  the 
burying  are  distinguished.  It  was  the  laying  of  him  in  the  sepulchre 
that  was  the  burial.  It  may  be  noted  also,  that  here  is  a  magnificent 
sepulchre,  built  as  a  house  for  the  dead,  in  which  the  corpse  lay  on  a 
bier  or  couch ;  yet  the  person  is  said  to  be  buried.  If  Christ  was  not 
truly  buried,  Aristobulus  was  not  truly  buried.  We  have  here,  also,  not 
only  sunthapto,  but  sugkatathapto.  The  ornaments  that  were  buried 
together  with  Aristobulus,  were  deposited  in  the  tomb  with  him, — not 
washed  along  with  him  by  preparatory  rites.  These  ornaments  were 
buried  doibn  toith  him,  although  he  was  laid,  like  Christ,  in  a  sepulchre 
above  ground.  Yet  this  is  as  truly  burying  as  the  common  way  of  bury- 
ing ;  though  the  sepulchre  should  have  been  on  the  top  of  the  highest 
mountain  in  the  world,  the  corpse  is  buried  under  a  covering,  as  truly 
as  if  it  were  deposited  in  the  centre  of  the  earth. 

Moschus,  describing  a  funeral,  represents  the  burial  as  taking  place 
after  all  the  rites  were  finished.     Meg.  i.  35. 

Patroclus,  notwithstanding  all  the  embalming  he  received,  appears  to 
his  friend  Achilles,  and  calls  for  burial.      Thapte  me,  "  bury  me." 

The  dead  body  of  Hector  was  washed  regularly  by  the  maids  of  Achil- 
les, yet  it  was  not  buried  till  long  after. 

The  passage  produced  by  Dr.  Cox  from  Herodotus,  is  most  decisive. 
The  embalming  is  designated  by  taricheuo,  the  burying  by  thapto.  But  it 
is  useless  to  be  particular  in  disproving  a  thing  that  has  not  even  the 
colour  of  plausibility  to  support  it.  No  two  things  can  be  more  distinct 
than  washing  or  embalming  the  dead,  and  burying  the  dead.  Indeed,  in 
the  burial  of  Jesus  itself,  these  two  things  are  distinguished.  They  first 
rolled  him  in  spices,  which  was  the  embalming :  then  they  laid  him  in 
the  sepulchre,  which  is  the  burying.  What  is  laying  in  a  sepulchre,  but 
burying?  But  Mr.  Ewing  says,  that  the  body  of  Christ  "was  never 
finally  deposited  in  the  tomb ;  but,  after  being  wound  up  with  about  an 
hundred  pounds  weight  of  spices,"  &c.  No  matter  how  short  a  time  it 
was  in  the  tomb;  in  the  tomb,  it  was  buried  like  any  other  dead  body. 
The  disciples  had  no  intention  of  ever  removing  it  from  the  tomb.  The 
women  who  came  with  more  spices,  had  no  intention  to  unbury  it,  or 
take  it  elsewhere.  To  give  more  spices,  was  not  to  complete  the  bury- 
ing, but  to  complete  the  embalming.  Were  a  person  in  Edinburgh  to  visit 
the  grave  of  a  friend  every  day,  and  even  open  both  grave  and  coffin,  to 
ascertain  whether  the  body  was  removed,  this  would  not  affect  the  bury- 
ing.    Why  should  preparatory  rites  be  called  the  burying  of  Jesus, 


150  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

seeing  he  was  actually  laid  in  the  sepulchre?  No  fancy  can  be  wilder 
than  this. 

Fourthly,  The  representations  of  Scripture  suppose  Jesus  to  have 
been  truly  buried.  "  For  as  Jonas  was  three  days  and  three  nights  in 
the  whale's  belly;  so  shall  the  Son  of  man  be  three  days  and  three 
nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth,"  Matt.  xii.  40.  Mr.  Ewing  himself  al- 
lows that  this  was  fulfilled  by  his  being  laid  in  a  sepulchre.  And  what 
is  laying  in  a  sepulchre,  but  burying?  Besides,  this  removes  all  Mr. 
Ewing's  objections  with  respect  to  the  situation  of  the  tomb  of  Jesus. 
In  this  sepulchre,  Jesus  was  in  the  heart  of  the  earth.  It  is  usual  for  a 
ridge  of  rocks  to  have  earth  on  the  top.  The  Saviour  was  under  the 
earth  here  as  well  as  if  he  had  been  buried  in  a  pit  at  the  bottom  of  a 
valley.  Again,  Christ's  being  buried,  is  taught  as  a  part  of  the  gospel, 
1  Cor.  xv.  1.  To  allege,  then,  that  he  was  not  truly  buried,  is  to  call  in 
question  the  truth  of  the  gospel.  "  Moreover,  brethren,  I  declare  unto 
you  the  gospel  which  I  preached  unto  you,  which  also  ye  have  received, 
and  wherein  ye  stand ;  by  which  also  ye  are  saved,  if  ye  keep  in  memory 
what  I  preached  unto  you,  unless  ye  have  believed  in  vain.  For  I  de- 
clared unto  you  first  of  all,  that  which  I  also  received,  how  that  Christ 
died  for  our  sins,  according  to  the  Scriptures ;  and  that  he  was  buried, 
and  that  he  rose  again  the  third  day,  according  to  the  Scriptures."  Here, 
what  was  in  the  evangelist  called  three  days  in  the  heart  of  the  earth,  the 
apostle  calls  being  buried;  for  he  is  said  to  have  risen  on  the  third  day. 
The  third  day  from  what?  The  third  day  from  his  being  buried.  He 
is  here  considered  as  being  three  days  buried,  for  he  rose  on  the  third 
day  from  his  being  buried.  His  resurrection  here,  is  also  opposed  to 
his  being  buried ;  it  must  then  be  burying,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
word. 

Fifthly,  The  very  basis  of  this  doctrine  is  a  mere  assumption,  namely, 
that  the  dead  body  of  Jesus  was  washed.  It  is  not  in  evidence  that  he 
was  washed  at  all ;  and  nothing  can  be  deduced  from  a  mere  supposi- 
tion. Mr.  Ewing,  indeed,  endeavours  to  supply  what  is  wanting  in  the 
history.  He  alleges,  what  no  one  will  deny,  that  it  was  usual  to  wash 
the  dead.  But  does  it  follow  from  this,  that  Jesus  must  have  been  wash- 
ed? We  should  not  have  known  that  he  was  embalmed,  had  not  the 
history  given  us  the  information.  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  dead  body 
of  Jesus  should  receive  all  the  usual  rites,  nor  any  of  them,  except  those 
that  prophecy  foretold.  The  proof,  then,  that  it  was  usual  to  wash  the 
dead,  is  no  proof  that  Jesus  was  washed.  Indeed,  I  perfectly  agree  with 
Dr.  Cox,  that  it  is  probable  Jesus  was  not  washed  at  all.  So  far  as  the 
history  goes,  this  is  the  obvious  conclusion.  I  acknowledge,  indeed, 
that  many  things  might  have  taken  place,  that  are  not  mentioned  in 
the  history.  If  any  other  part  of  Scripture  said,  or  implied  that  Jesus 
was  washed,  as  well  as  embalmed,  I  would  argue  that  the  omission  of 
the  fact  in  the  history  is  no  evidence  to  the  contrary.  But  if  the  wash- 
ing is  not  recorded,  nothing  can  be  built  on  it;  because  it  might  not  have 
taken  place.  The  washing  of  Jesus  is  an  apocryphal  washing,  of  no  more 
authority  than  the  story  of  Tobit  and  his  dog,  or  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon. 
I  admit  no  argument  but  what  is  founded  either  on  Scripture,  or  self- 


THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  151 

evident  truth.  Had  Mr.  Ewing  been  obviating  a  difficulty, — had  he 
been  proving  that  some  part  of  Scripture  asserts  that  the  dead  body  of 
Jesus  was  washed,  and  had  any  one  alleged  the  silence  of  the  history 
as  evidence  of  the  contrary,  I  would  take  part  with  Mr.  Ewing.  The 
silence  of  history  is  not  to  be  alleged  against  proof.  To  remove  a 
difficulty,  it  is  sufficient  that  the  thing  alleged  is  possible ;  to  be  an 
argument,  the  thing  alleged  must  be  in  evidence.  This  distinction  is 
self-evidently  obvious,  when  it  is  considered ;  yet  it  is  a  thing  that  lies 
hid  from  most  controversial  writers. 

But  Mr.  Ewing  says,  "  as  far  as  the  preliminary  process  went,  we  are 
told  it  was  conducted,  as  the  manner  of  the  Jews  was  to  bury."  No, 
Mr.  Ewing,  we  are  not  told  this.  Had  this  been  said,  it  would  settle  the 
question  ;  for  undoubtedly,  it  was  the  manner  of  the  Jews  to  wash  the 
dead.  But  we  are  not  told  that,  as  far  as  the  preliminary  process 
went,  all  the  usual  rites  were  observed.  It  is  the  winding  in  the  linen 
cloth  with  the  spices,  that  is  said  to  have  been,  "  as  the  manner  of  the 
Jews  is  to  bury." 

Mr.  Ewing  alleges  the  state  of  the  body,  covered  with  blood,  &c,  as 
making  washing  necessary.  All  this,  however,  is  no  evidence  that  it 
was  done.  Had  it  been  necessary  to  fulfil  anything  in  Scripture,  there 
is  no  doubt  it  would  have  been  done.  But  there  is  no  necessity  to  fulfil 
national  customs.  The  burying  of  Jesus  with  his  blood  unwashed, 
marred  not  his  sacrifice,  nor  left  any  prophecy  unfulfilled.  It  was 
customary  for  all  friends  to  escort  the  body  to  the  grave ;  it  was  customary 
to  keep  the  corpse  some  time  after  death,  yet  Jesus  was  carried  imme- 
diately to  the  grave  without  any  funeral  pomp. 

Sixthly,  Is  it  not  above  all  things  absurd  to  suppose,  that  an  ordinance 
in  the  church  of  Christ  should  be  instituted  as  an  emblem  of  a  thing 
that  is  never  once  mentioned  in  his  history?  If  the  washing  of  the  dead 
body  of  the  Saviour  was  a  thing  of  so  much  importance,  is  it  credible 
that  it  would  not  have  been  mentioned  ?  How  is  it  that  the  spices  are 
mentioned,  yet  the  washing,  which  was  the  principal  thing,  omitted? 

Seventhly,  Mr.  Ewing  supposes,  that  the  washing,  as  a  part  of  the 
embalming,  is  put  for  the  whole.  Why  does  he  make  such  a  supposition  ? 
Was  there  not  a  word  to  signify  embalming?  Why  then  use  a  word 
that  denotes  only  a  part  of  the  thing?  Can  he  produce  any  instance  to 
give  authority  to  such  a  supposition  ?  Was  it  usual  to  denote  the  whole 
process  of  embalming  by  the  word  ivash  1  If  not,  why  does  Mr.  Ewing 
make  the  arbitrary  supposition?  Again,  the  washing  was  no  part  of  the 
embalming.  It  was  a  part  of  the  rites  of  burying,  and  as  such,  when 
embalming  was  used,  washing  of  course  first  took  place.  But  it  is 
evident,  that  the  washing  and  the  embalming  were  different  things. 
Besides,  many  were  washed  who  were  not  embalmed.  If  so,  it  was 
impossible  to  designate  embalming  by  washing.  This  would  have  im- 
plied, that  all  who  were  washed  were  embalmed  ;  whereas  multitudes 
were  washed  who  were  not  embalmed.  This  theory,  then,  is  not  only 
founded  on  an  arbitrary  supposition ;  but  that  supposition  may  be  proved 
to  be  false.  It  is  an  axiom,  that  washing  cannot  stand  for  embalming, 
if  many  who  were  washed  were  not  embalmed. 


152  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

Eighthly,  This  theory  makes  baptism  an  emblem  of  the  embalming 
of  Christ.  This  is  a  new  view  of  the  import  of  baptism,  that  must  be  as 
unexpected  to  those  who  baptize  by  pouring,  as  to  the  friends  of  immer- 
sion. From  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist  to  the  present  hour,  was  ever 
such  a  thing  heard  of  but  from  Mr.  Ewing?  If  this  is  true,  there  has 
not  been  one  properly  baptized  till  the  time  of  the  author.  For  this 
discovery,  Mr.  Ewing  is  undoubtedly  entitled  to  a  patent.  Till  his  time, 
the  baptized  person  was  never  embalmed.  This  is  a  new  mystery  in 
baptism.  But  how  does  this  consist  with  the  other  mysteries  that  the 
author  has  found  in  the  same  ordinance?  The  baptized  person  drinks 
from  the  cup  of  nature  as  emblematical  of  a  host  of  blessings ;  and  from 
the  same  cup  he  is  washed  and  embalmed  for  funeral.  No  popish  ordi- 
nance can  vie  with  this  ordinance  of  Mr.  Ewing,  in  fertility  of  mysteries. 
The  mystery  of  the  five  wounds  has  as  good  a  foundation ;  but  it  is  not 
so  pregnant  in  multifarious  meaning.  If  all  these  things  are  contained 
in  baptism,  it  is  a  most  heterogeneous  ordinance ;  and  I  am  sure,  that  of 
all  the  millions  who  practise  it,  there  is  not  one  in  every  thousand  that 
understands  it.  The  Roman  Catholic  church  has  done  much  better. 
She  has  a  multitude  of  mysteries  in  baptism,  but  she  has  a  corresponding 
multitude  of  emblems.  The  oil,  and  the  spittle,  and  the  breathing,  &c. 
&c,  entitle  her  to  enlarge  the  meaning  of  her  ordinance.  But  Mr.  Ewing, 
by  the  management  of  one  handful  of  water,  contrives  to  couch  the  most 
discordant  meanings. 

But  if  washing  stands  for  embalming  as  a  part  for  the  whole,  then  it 
cannot,  in  this  situation,  stand  simply  for  itself,  without  the  other  parts 
of  the  process  of  embalming.  In  baptism,  the  water  must  signify  not 
washing  only,  nor  chiefly,  but  also  and  especially  the  spices,  &c.  The 
principal  part  of  the  mystery  must  be  in  the  anointing  with  oil,  and  the 
use  of  the  spices,  for  these  were  the  principal  things  in  the  embalming. 
Now,  Mr.  Ewing  overlooks  all  but  the  washing;  which  is  only  the 
previous  step  to  the  embalming.  He  first  makes  the  embalming  the 
principal  thing,  that  he  may  have  some  plausible  foundation  for  getting 
rid  of  true  burying,  by  substituting  the  embalming  in  its  place.  Then, 
when  this  is  effected,  as  he  has  no  need  of  embalming,  but  finds  it  rather 
cumbersome,  he  contrives  to  dismiss  it,  retaining  only  the  part  that  fits 
him.  Washing  is  brought  in  only  in  the  right  of  embalming ;  but  when- 
ever it  pops  its  head  into  this  situation,  it  takes  care  to  displace  its 
principal.  Accordingly,  washing  is  the  only  thing  that  is  made  emblem- 
atical. The  oil  and  spices  have  no  mystery.  Is  not  this  unjust  to  the 
chief  parts  of  the  embalming  ?  Surely  the  anointing  ought  to  have  a 
place  in  baptism,  if  baptism  is  an  emblem  of  embalming.  Spices  also 
cannot  be  dispensed  with.  Even  if  they  are  not  used,  as  they  are  the 
chief  thing  in  embalming,  they  must  be  chiefly  considered  in  baptism, 
which  is  an  emblem  of  embalming.  The  Church  of  Rome  will  thank 
Mr.  Ewing  for  the  oil,  which  he  does  not  seem  forward  to  use ;  but  the 
spices,  by  a  very  little  ingenuity,  might  serve  his  system  effectually.  As 
embalming  preserves  the  body  from  putrefaction,  so  baptism  may  not 
only  be  an  emblem  of  the  washing  of  a  corpse,  but  of  the  resurrection. 

Ninthly,  Mr.  Ewing  complains  of  the  want  of  likeness  between  Christ's 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  153 

burial  and  immersion ;  yet  he  makes  a  handful  of  water  an  emblem  not 
only  of  washing  a  corpse,  but  of  the  whole  rites  of  embalming.  Surely 
there  can  be  nothing  more  unlike  burial  rites,  than  the  popping  of  a 
handful  of  water  into  the  face  of  an  infant.  But  the  complaint  of  want 
of  likeness  in  immersion  to  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  is  quite 
unreasonable.  It  is  as  striking  as  any  emblem  can  be.  It  ought,  how- 
ever, to  be  remarked,  that  the  ordinance  is  merely  emblematical — not 
dramatic.  In  the  former,  there  is  no  need  of  that  exact  and  minute 
likeness  that  the  latter  requires.  The  former  could  not  be  known  to  be 
a  likeness  of  something  else,  if  it  were  not  explained  to  be  such.  The 
latter  is,  by  its  very  appearance,  known  to  be  an  emblem.  The  sacrifices 
of  the  Jewish  law  could  not,  from  mere  external  appearance,  have  been 
known  to  represent  the  death  of  Christ.  But  the  dramatic  burying  of 
Charles  V.  declared  its  own  object. 

Let  it  be  considered  also,  that  in  the  emblem  of  a  burial,  there  is  no 
need  of  a  likeness  in  the  laying  down  of  the  body  of  the  person  bap- 
tized. The  emblem  is  in  the  actual  state  of  the  body  as  being  covered 
with  the  water.  The  likeness  to  the  resurrection  consists  not  in  the 
very  manner  of  being  taken  up  out  of  the  water,  but  in  the  rising  itself. 
Nothing  could  afford  a  resemblance  of  the  way  of  the  raising  of  the 
dead.  There  was  no  likeness  between  the  way  of  killing  the  sacrifice 
and  the  manner  of  Christ's  death.  There  was  no  likeness  between  the 
manner  in  which  Jonah  was  swallowed  by  the  whale,  and  again  thrown 
out,  to  the  way  in  which  Christ  was  carried  into  the  tomb,  and  in  which 
he  came  out  of  the  tomb ;  yet  Jonah  in  the  whale's  belly  was  an  emblem 
of  Christ  as  being  three  days  in  the  heart  of  the  earth.  Surely  Mr. 
Ewing  should  have  attended  more  to  the  nature  of  an  emblem,  and  have 
distinguished  what  is  the  point  of  resemblance,  before  he  ventured  to 
question  the  likeness  between  the  baptism  of  believers  and  the  burial  of 
Christ,  which  is  asserted  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  If  the  Baptists  set  any 
value  on  the  manner  of  putting  the  body  of  the  baptized  person  under 
water,  in  my  opinion  they  come  under  the  same  censure.  Mr.  Ewing's 
whole  dissertation  on  the  Jewish  manner  of  burying  the  distinguished 
dead,  has  no  bearing  on  the  subject.  Between  immersion  and  burying 
in  any  manner,  there  is  a  likeness.  It  is  nothing  to  our  purpose  to 
make  that  likeness  dramatic. 

Mr.  Ewing  is  of  opinion,  that  verse  5  does  not  refer  to  baptism.  But 
whatever  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  word  translated  "  planted  together," 
it  is  evident,  that  it  must  have  its  reference  to  baptism.  It  is  a  distinct 
figure,  and  the  manner  of  introducing  it,  evidently  shows  that  it,  equally 
with  burying,  refers  to  baptism.  "  For  if  we  have  been  planted  together 
in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resur- 
rection." The  conditional  statement  is  here  evidently  founded  on  what 
precedes.  "  If  we  have  been  planted,"  &c.  He  does  not  pass  on  to  a 
new  argument  to  show  that  we  are  dead  with  Christ,  leaving  the  subject 
of  baptism ;  but  having  shown  the  burial  of  the  Christian  in  baptism, 
he  goes  on  to  show  that  resurrection  is  equally  important.  If  we  have 
been  buried  with  Christ,  so  shall  we  rise  with  him.  Had  he  quitted 
the  subject  of  baptism,  and  introduced  a  new  argument,  which  had  no 

20 


154  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

reference  to  baptism,  he  would  not  have  stated  it  conditionally.  When 
he  says,  "  For  if  we  have  been  planted,"  it  is  implied  that  he  had  been 
saying  something  expressing  or  implying  that  they  had  been  planted. 
Whatever  is  the  meaning  of  sumphutoi,  it  must  have  a  reference  to 
baptism. 

Mr.  Ewing  thinks  that  sumphntoi  here  signifies  grafted,  and  of  course 
can  have  no  likeness  to  baptism.  On  the  contrary,  for  this  very  reason 
I  say  that  it  cannot  signify  grafting,  because  it  is  expressly  said,  that  we 
have  been  sumphntoi  in  the  likeness  of  Christ's  death.  If,  then,  there  is 
in  grafting  no  likeness  to  death,  the  word  cannot  mean  grafting.  What- 
ever is  the  meaning  of  sumphutoi,  it  must  suit  the  supposition  of  a 
likeness  to  death.  Even  if  this  word  had  no  reference  to  baptism,  it 
must  refer  to  a  likeness  of  death.  We  have  been  made  sumphutoi  in  the 
likeness  of  his  death. 

But  independently  of  the  connexion  altogether,  I  maintain  that  the 
word  does  not  signify  grafted.  Mr.  Ewing  produces  no  authority  from 
use  to  establish  this  meaning.  When  it  refers  to  trees,  it  does  not  desig- 
nate the  operation  of  grafting,  or  of  inserting  a  part  of  one  into  another  ; 
but  to  the  planting  of  trees  in  the  same  bed.  The  trees  of  a  grove  are 
sumphutoi.  Grafting  is,  indeed,  one  of  the  figures  employed  to  repre- 
sent the  union  of  Christ  and  his  people,  and  some  excellent  observations 
on  this  subject  are  contained  in  Mr.  Ewing's  dissertation  on  this  verse. 
But  they  have  no  application  to  this  subject.  A  house,  a  temple,  the 
human  body,  the  husband  and  wife,  are  all  figures  of  this  union.  But 
they  are  not  the  figures  used  here.  No  more  is  grafting.  It  is  a  fine 
figure  in  its  own  place ;  but  it  is  no  likeness  to  death,  and  therefore  has 
nothing  to  do  with  baptism.  If  the  allusion  is  here  to  planting,  as  it  is 
expressly  said  to  have  a  likeness  to  death,  and  refers  to  baptism,  the 
resemblance  must  be  found  in  the  burying  of  the  roots  of  the  plants. 
The  likeness  is  sufficiently  obvious  to  justify  a  metaphor. 

Mr.  Ewing's  attempt,  then,  to  find  in  pouring  a  handful  of  water  on 
the  face,  a  likeness  to  the  burial  of  Christ,  has  utterly  failed.  It  is  as 
forced  as  anything  that  the  wildest  imagination  ever  conceived.  Nothing 
but  the  necessity  of  a  favourite  system  could  send  a  man  on  such  a 
perilous  expedition.  It  is  most  astonishing,  that  any  man  who  allows 
that  Jesus  Christ  lay  three  days  in  the  tomb,  should  attempt  to  find  his 
burial  in  the  washing  or  embalming  of  his  body. 

This  attempt  of  Mr.  Ewing  to  force  a  likeness  between  baptism  and 
the  rites  of  embalming,  and  to  make  the  burial  of  Christ,  not  his  being 
laid  in  the  sepulchre,  but  his  being  washed  as  a  corpse,  is  of  great 
importance  as  a  document  on  this  subject.  It  testifies  in  the  strongest 
manner,  that  in  Mr.  Ewing's  judgment,  the  evidence  from  Rom.  vi.  3, 
and  Col.  ii.  12,  that  baptism  contains  a  likeness  to  burial,  is  so  obvious, 
that  he  could  see  no  way  to  explain  these  passages  otherwise.  Had  any 
other  explanation  seemed  to  him  possible,  certainly  he  would  not  have 
had  recourse  to  so  wild  a  thought,  as  that  Christ's  burial  was  not  his 
interment,  and  that  bury  in  the  Scriptures  relates  to  rites  preparatory  to 
interment.  It  is  self-evident,  that  no  man  would  have  fled  to  such  a 
refuge,  who  could  have  found  any  other.     I  appeal  to  common  sense  for 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  155 

the  truth  of  this  observation.  Mr.  Ewing  not  only  had  no  temptation 
to  find  a  likeness  to  burial  in  these  passages,  but  his  cause  would  have 
been  much  better  served,  could  he  have  proved  that  these  passages  con- 
tain no  such  likness.  Since,  then,  in  such  circumstances  he  has  confessed 
a  likeness,  and  since  to  divert  this  likeness  to  another  object,  he  was 
obliged  to  have  recourse  to  so  violent  an  expedient,  we  have  a  right  to 
say,  not  only  that  his  judgment  is  in  favour  of  likeness,  but  that  all  his 
ingenuity  could  not  explain  the  passages  in  a  manner  satisfactory  to 
himself,  without  the  supposition  of  likeness. 

But  what  Mr.  Ewing's  intrepidity  and  ingenuity  did  not  attempt,  Dr. 
Wardlaw  has  undertaken.  He  explains  the  passages  on  the  supposition 
that  baptism  has  no  likeness  to  burial  in  any  sense.  Now,  in  this  we 
have  Dr.  Wardlaw's  judgment  virtually,  but  clearly  pronounced,  that 
Mr.  Ewing's  attempt  is  a  failure.  We  have  a  right  then  to  say,  that 
Mr.  Ewing's  explanation  of  these  passages  is  unsatisfactory  to  the  most 
sagacious  of  his  own  party.  But  Dr.  Wardlaw's  opinion  of  the  insuffi- 
ciency of  Mr.  Ewing's  explanation,  has  the  more  value,  when  it  is 
considered,  that  by  refusing  to  adopt  it,  he  is  obliged  to  have  recourse 
to  an  expedient  as  violent,  and  as  wild  as  that  of  Mr.  Ewing  itself.  To 
assert,  that  there  is  here  no  likeness  implied  between  baptism  and  burial, 
does  as  great  violence  to  language  as  can  easily  be  conceived.  If,  there- 
fore, Dr.  Wardlaw  is  so  convinced  of  the  insufficiency  of  Mr.  Ewing's 
explanation,  that  he  ventures  on  one  so  extravagant,  his  opinion  of  Mr. 
Ewing's  failure  is  entitled  to  the  greater  weight.  It  was  his  interest  to 
coincide  with  Mr.  Ewing's  explanation,  had  he  conceived  that  it  was  at 
all  tenable.  He  would  not  have  ventured  to  come  ashore  upon  a  plank, 
had  he  not  found  Mr.  Ewing's  leaky  boat  sinking  under  him.  Dr. 
Wardlaw  complains  of  the  mode  of  controversy  that  argues  from 
discrepancies  between  those  on  the  same  side.  I  admit  that  the  argu- 
ment may  be  abused.  But  if  he  complain  of  my  argument  on  this 
point,  he  does  not  see  its  bearing.  Persons  on  the  same  side  of  a  con- 
troversy, may  differ  with  respect  to  the  explanation  of  many  passages, 
without  any  detriment  to  their  common  cause.  But  the  difference  here 
is  about  a  thing  which  must  in  itself  be  obvious,  namely,  whether  a 
certain  phrase  implies  the  likeness  of  one  thing  to  another.  About  this 
there  cannot  in  reality  be  a  ground  for  controversy  among  those  who 
understand  the  words. 

The  difference,  also,  is  of  such  a  nature,  that  each  must  look  on  the 
other  as  giving  up  the  common  cause.  As  Mr.  Ewing  is  so  fully  con- 
vinced that  it  is  impossible  to  deface  the  likeness,  he  must  look  upon 
those  who  do  not  agree  with  him  in  finding  it  in  preparatory  rites,  as 
giving  up  the  passage  to  his  opponents.  As  Dr.  Wardlaw  cannot 
explain  the  passages  on  the  supposition  of  likeness  without  admitting 
immersion,  he  must  look  upon  those  who  admit  likeness,  as  yielding  the 
doctrine  in  debate.  On  the  other  hand,  we  may  differ  about  the  mean- 
ing of  sumphutoi,  without  the  least  danger  to  our  common  cause.  One 
may  say,  it  is  "planted  together"  another,  that  it  is  "joined  together," 
without  overturning  the  common  doctrine.  My  argument  is  founded, 
also,  on  the  extravagancies  to  which  each  of  these  writers  is  obliged  to 


156  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

have  recourse,  in  order  to  defend  his  opinion.  Each  of  them  must  have 
strong  reason  of  dissatisfaction  with  the  opinion  of  the  other,  when, 
rather  than  embrace  it,  he  has  recourse  to  an  opposite  point  of  extrava- 
gance. One  sees  likeness  so  clearly,  that  rather  than  deny  it,  he 
endeavours  to  find  it  where  sobriety  of  judgment  never  could  look  for 
it.  The  other  sees  the  extravagance  of  this  attempt  so  clearly,  that,  rather 
than  adopt  it,  he  will  deny  that  the  passages  contain  any  likeness. 

But  let  us  now  take  a  glance  at  the  process  of  ejectment  by  which 
Dr.  Wardlaw  has  dispossessed  likeness  out  of  these  passages.  "  To  be 
1  baptized  into  Christ,'  "  says  he,  "  is  to  be  baptized  into  the  faith  of  him 
as  the  Messiah,"  &c.  And  again,  "  the  simple  meaning  of  the  expres- 
sion evidently  is,  that  by  being  baptized  into  the  faith  of  his  death,  as 
the  death  of  our  surety  and  substitute,  we  become  partakers  with  him  in 
it."  Now,  what  is  here  said  to  be  evidently  the  simple  meaning  of  this 
expression,  is  evidently  not  its  meaning  at  all.  We  do  not  become  par- 
takers in  the  death  of  Christ,  by  being  baptized  into  the  faith  of  his 
death.  We  become  partakers  in  the  death  of  Christ,  by  faith,  before 
baptism,  and  without  baptism ;  and  should  have  been  equally  so,  had 
baptism  never  been  instituted.  In  baptism,  this  participation  with 
Christ  is  exhibited  in  figure,  just  as  we  are  said  to  wash  away  our  sins 
in  baptism.  Sins  are  washed  away  by  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  but 
they  are  symbolically  washed  away  in  baptism.  Just  so  we  become 
partakers  in  the  death  of  Christ  the  moment  we  believe ;  in  baptism, 
this  participation  is  exhibited  by  a  symbol. 

Dr.  Wardlaw,  by  this  mode  of  interpretation,  considers  faith  in  Christ's 
death,  and  baptism  into  his  death,  as  equivalent  expressions.  But  to  be 
"  baptized  into  his  death,"  is  more  than  to  "  believe  in  his  death." 
Baptism  into  his  death,  not  only  imports  that  we  believe  in  him  as  our 
substitute,  but  marks  our  death  in  his  death.  To  be  baptized  into  his 
death,  is  the  same  as  to  be  buried  into  death.  In  reality,  we  die  with 
Christ  the  moment  we  believe  ;  but  this  is  not  expressed  by  the  phrase, 
faith  in  Christ's  death.  It  is  learned  from  other  parts  of  the  Scriptures. 
Now,  herein  lies  the  importance  of  the  mode  of  baptism.  It  marks,  in  a 
figure,  the  way  in  which  we  become  partakers  in  the  benefits  of  Christ's 
death.  This  is  by  our  being,  by  a  Divine  constitution,  one  with  him. 
His  death  is  a  proper  atonement  for  us,  because  we  die  with  him,  so 
that  in  reality  his  death  is  ours.  This  is  not  necessary  in  all  cases  of 
substitution.  To  have  a  debt  discharged  by  another,  there  is  no  neces- 
sity to  become  one  with  him.  But  it  is  not  so  in  crime.  Justice  is 
not  satisfied,  except  the  criminal  himself  suffers ;  and  by  the  Divine 
constitution,  that  makes  all  believers  one  with  Christ,  they  are  all  con- 
sidered as  having  died  with  him.  The  criminals  have  suffered,  since  he 
who  suffered  was  one  with  them.  Baptism,  then,  marks  this  circum- 
stance. It  shows,  in  a  figure,  that  union  with  Christ  in  his  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection,  which  we  have  by  faith. 

According  to  Dr.  Wardlavv's  way  of  explaining  these  passages,  there 
was  no  occasion  to  mention  baptism  at  all.  If  the  apostle  is  speaking  of 
the  real  oneness  with  Christ,  without  considering  it  as  exhibited  in  a 
figure,  he  might  as  well  have  said,  "  Know  ye  not,  that  as  many  as  have 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  157 

believed  in  Christ's  death,  have  died  along  with  him  ?"  This  would 
express  all  that  Dr.  Wardlaw  takes  out  of  the  passage :  and  it  would 
express  it  definitely.  Why,  then,  does  the  apostle  bring  in  baptism  at 
all?  Ao-ain,  if  baptism  implies  burial  only  as  implying  faith  in  Christ's 
death,  then  the  Lord's  supper,  or  anything  that  implies  faith,  might 
have  been  referred  to  on  this  occasion,  as  well  as  baptism.  We  might 
as  well  say  that  we  are  buried  by  the  Lord's  supper  as  buried  by 
baptism.  We  might  as  well  say  that  we  are  crucified  by  baptism. 
But  such  phraseology  is  never  used  in  the  Scriptures.  The  only  reason, 
then,  that  baptism  is  here  brought  forward  at  all,  must  be  that  it  is  a 
figure  of  burial. 

That  baptism  has  a  likeness  to  death,  is  put  beyond  question  in  this 
passage,  from  the  phrase,  buried  with  him  through  baptism  into  death. 
Here  is  a  burial  by  or  through  the  means  of  baptism.  What  buries  us 
into  death?  It  is  baptism.  But  the  death  into  which  baptism  buries 
us,  must  be  a  figurative  death.  It  is  faith  that  buries  us  truly  into 
Christ's  death.  But  the  death  and  burial  here  spoken  of,  are  effected, 
not  by  faith,  but  by  baptism.  This  phrase  refutes  Dr.  Wardlaw's  asser- 
tion, that  though  a  likeness  might  be  fancied  between  immersion  and 
burial,  no  likeness  to  death  can  be  found  in  it.  The  phrase,  buried  by 
baptism  into  death,  imports  that  we  die  with  Christ  in  baptism,  as  well  as 
we  are  buried  with  him.  Nay,  it  is  by  burial  we  die.  We  are  supposed 
to  be  buried  into  death.  And  the  figure  is  well  fitted  for  this  purpose. 
To  immerse  a  living  man,  affords  an  emblem  of  death  as  well  as  of 
burial.  The  baptized  person  dies  under  the  water,  and  for  a  moment 
lies  buried  with  Christ.  Christ's  own  death  was  spoken  of  under  the 
figure  of  a  baptism. 

Dr.  Wardlaw,  indeed,  asserts  that  the  phrase,  buried  with  him  by 
baptism  into  his  death,  merely  directs  the  attention  to  that  into  which  they 
were  baptized.  But  the  passage  says  nothing  of  the  doctrine  into  which 
they  were  baptized,  in  any  other  way  than  as  it  is  contained  in  the 
figure.  As  I  observed  before,  it  is  by  baptism,  and  not  by  faith,  they 
are  here  said  to  be  buried ;  and,  therefore,  the  burial  must  be  a  figura- 
tive burial.  The  phrase  in  Col.  ii.  12,  is  different,  but  equally  express. 
It  is  buried  with  him  in  baptism.  This  burial,  then,  takes  place,  not  in 
believing,  but  in  baptism.  We  are  buried  with  him  when  we  are  bap- 
tized, and  by  the  act  of  baptizing.  The  two  expressions,  when  taken 
together,  make  the  thing  more  definite.  One  of  them  expresses  that  it 
is  in  baptism  that  we  are  buried ;  the  other,  that  it  is  by  baptism  that 
we  are  buried. 

Dr.  Wardlaw  speaks  of  this  passage,  as  containing  "  a  beautiful  illus- 
tration of  the  spiritual  connexion  of  believers  with  Christ."  Now,  how  is 
this  an  illustration,  if  it  is  not  by  continuing  a  likeness  to  the  thing 
illustrated  ?  Is  it  not  absurd  to  speak  of  illustrating  by  things  in  which 
there  is  no  resemblance  to  the  principal  object?  Dr.  Wardlaw  cannot 
consistently  look  on  this  as  an  illustration.  He  sets  out  with  supposing, 
that  the  passage  refers  merely  to  the  participation  that  believers  have  in 
Christ's  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  by  faith,  without  any  likeness  to 
these  things  in  baptism.     Now,  if  this  is  the  case,  death,  burial,  and 


158  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

resurrection,  are  here  not  an  illustration  of  connexion,  but  an  exemplifi- 
cation of  connexion.  By  calling  these  things  an  illustration,  the  author 
gives  up  his  doctrine.  Indeed,  these  things  are  so  obviously  an  illustra- 
tion— the  passage  so  evidenly  considers  death,  burial,  and  resurrection, 
as  figurative,  that  it  is  not  easy  even  for  the  most  determined  enemy  of 
immersion,  to  speak  much  about  the  passage,  without  using  language 
that  admits  this. 

"  To  be  dead  with  Christ,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  and  to  be  buried  with 
Christ,  are  the  same  thing."  Certainly  not.  Death  is  different  from 
burial,  though  burial  includes  death.  Were  they  not  different,  they 
would  not  both  have  been  mentioned  here.  It  is  a  distinct  part  of  the 
gospel  testimony,  that  Christ  was  buried.  His  burial  was  as  distinct 
from  his  death,  as  his  resurrection  was. 

"  The  latter  of  the  two  phrases,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  appears  to  be 
used  in  the  fourth  verse,  chiefly  for  the  sake  of  completing  the  apostle's 
figure"  This  assertion  is  most  injurious  to  the  language  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  totally  unfounded  in  the  lawful  use  of  figures.  I  am  bold  to 
assert,  that  there  cannot  be  an  instance  of  what  the  author  asserts,  with- 
out a  serious  trespass  of  the  laws  of  figurative  language.  It  is  true, 
indeed,  that  in  allegory  there  may  be  some  points  in  the  figure  which 
have  nothing  to  correspond  to  them  in  the  thing  illustrated,  because  the 
unity  of  the  resembling  object  cannot  be  broken.  But  to  add  burial  to 
death,  is  to  add  one  figure  to  another  without  any  necessity.  If,  then, 
there  is  no  distinct  meaning  in  burial,  to  add  it  to  death  is  vicious  in 
taste,  and  childish  in  argument.  The  only  reason  why  burial  is  men- 
tioned, must  be  that  it  has  a  distinct  meaning.  To  suppose  that  the 
apostle  would  bring  it  in  merely  for  the  purpose  of  stringing  one  figure 
to  another,  is  not  only  an  affront  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  would  be  an 
impeachment  of  the  good  sense  of  the  apostle,  if  he  had  written  without 
inspiration.  Plato,  indeed,  goes  over  the  whole  human  body,  and  brings 
out  of  it  a  chain  of  metaphors.  He  makes  the  head  a  citadel,  the 
neck  an  isthmus,  &c.  This  is  sufficiently  childish,  but  it  is  manly 
compared  with  what  the  apostle  is  supposed  to  do.  Plato  gives  some 
meaning  to  each  of  his  figures ;  but  the  apostle  strings  one  figure  to 
another,  not  for  the  sake  of  additional  illustration,  but  out  of  the  puerile 
conceit  of  completing  his  series  of  figures.  It  would  have  been  an 
improvement,  had  he  inserted  the  embalming  between  death  and  the 
burial,  and  added  the  funeral  procession  to  the  series. 

But  what  shall  we  say  of  the  apostle's  figure  ?  Is  there,  then,  a 
figure  in  the  apostle's  language  ?  Are  this  death,  burial,  and  resurrec- 
tion figurative  ?  If  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  in  baptism  are 
figurative,  they  must  have  a  likeness.  Is  there  any  figurative  death 
without  a  likeness''  There  is  a  common  proverb,  that  murder  will 
never  lie.  The  murderer  will  sometimes  discover  himself  even  by 
talking  in  his  sleep.  Dr.  Wardlaw  has  murdered  this  passage  most 
barbarously,  and  it  is  no  wonder  if  he  informs  against  himself.  While 
he  has  assassinated  the  likeness  in  baptism  to  death,  burial,  and  resur- 
rection, he  speaks  of  illustration,  figure,  and  resemblance. 

"  As  it  was   necessary,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  in  order  to  Christ's 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  159 

rising,  that  he  should  be  laid  in  the  grave ;  so  in  the  figure,  it  is  neces- 
sary that  we  should  be  viewed  as  buried  icith  him,  in  order  to  our  rising 
with  him  to  newness  of  life."  Certainly,  it  is  necessary  that  we  should 
be  viewed  in  the  figure  of  baptism  as  buried  with  Christ.  But  if  the 
author  means  that  we  are  buried  with  Christ  by  faith  in  him  as  a  sub- 
stitute merely  by  a  mode  of  speaking,  it  is  a  most  serious  error.  Does 
the  author  say  that  it  is  in  a  figurative  way  of  speaking  that  the  believer 
dies  with  Christ?  If  he  does,  he  has  a  very  inadequate  view  of  the  be- 
liever's oneness  with  Christ.  The  believer  is  one  with  Christ,  not  by  a 
peculiar  mode  of  speaking,  or  a  particular  way  of  viewing  the  subject, 
but  by  a  real  union.  He  is  one  with  Christ  as  truly  as  he  is  one  with 
Adam.  He  dies  with  Christ  as  truly  a?  he  fell  with  Adam.  Christ's 
work  is  his,  as  truly  as  Adam's  sin  is  his.  By  a  Divine  constitution  all 
Adam's  posterity  are  one  in  him,  and  so  his  first  sin  is  really  and  truly 
theirs.  By  a  similar  Divine  constitution  all  Christ's  people  are  one  with 
him,  and  his  work  is  as  really  theirs,  as  if  they  had  themselves  performed 
it.  When  it  is  said  that  Christians  have  died  with  Christ  by  faith,  there 
is  no  more  figure  than  when  it  is  said  that  they  have  died  in  Adam,  or 
that  they  shall  die  themselves. 

But  this  view  of  the  subject  overturns  the  apostle's  reasoning  alto- 
gether. Dr.  Wardlaw  understands  the  apostle  as  speaking  of  the  con- 
nexion that  believers  have  with  Christ  by  faith ;  and  that  they  are  here 
said  to  be  dead  with  him,  buried  with  him,  and  to  be  risen  with  him, 
not  by  a  likeness  to  these  things  in  baptism,  but  merely  by  faith.  Now, 
if  he  ascribes  to  them  this  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  as  a  mode  of 
viewing  them,  or  as  a  figurative  way  of  speaking,  he  wrests  the  apostle's 
argument  out  of  his  hands.  If  this  death  is  the  death  by  faith,  and  yet 
nothing  but  a  figure,  then  our  security  against  living  in  sin,  according 
to  the  apostle,  is  nothing  but  a  figure.  A  figurative  death  is  no  security 
against  sin.  An  actor  will  die  on  the  stage  to-night,  and  act  to-morrow. 
If  it  is  only  in  a  certain  way  of  speaking  that  we  rise  with  Christ  by 
faith,  then  there  is  from  that  figurative  resurrection  no  security  of  a  holy 
life.  The  spirit  of  the  apostle's  reasoning  on  this  verse  would  be, 
"  How  can  they,  who  are  said  by  a  figure  to  be  dead  to  sin,  live  any 
longer  therein?  Know  ye  not  that  as  many  of  us  as  have  believed  on 
Christ,  are  figuratively  viewed  as  having  died  with  him  ?"  This  figure 
would  be  a  weak  security  against  living  in  sin.  It  must  be  a  real  death 
that  will  secure  against  sin.  Now,  how  different  is  the  apostle's  argu- 
ment, on  our  view!  "How  shall  we,  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any 
longer  therein  ?"  This  must  be  real  death,  otherwise  there  is  no  argu- 
ment. How  then  are  we  dead  ?  By  faith  in  Christ  we  are  dead.  But 
in  baptism  this  truth  is  exhibited  in  figure,  "  Know  ye  not  that  so 
many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his 
death?"  To  be  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  imports  the  being  baptized 
into  the  faith  of  his  death  as  our  substitute ;  but  to  be  baptized  into  his 
death  imports,  that  by  baptism  we  are  exhibited  as  dying  along  with 
him.  The  death  in  baptism  is  a  figurative  death,  founded  on  the  real 
death  by  faith.  If  baptized  into  his  death  does  not  import  our  death 
with  Christ,  this  verse  is  not  proof  of  what  is  asserted  in  the  former ; 


160  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

and  if  baptism  is  no  figurative  burial,  it  is  no  proof  of  death,  and  there- 
fore would  be  only  an  incumbrance  in  this  place.  The  Christian  has  a 
real  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  with  Christ  by  faith.  He  has  all 
these  also  in  baptism  by  figure.  Baptism  is  a  proof  of  death,  because 
it  has  no  meaning  otherwise.  Hence  it  is  used  as  an  argument  here ; 
and  hence  the  great  importance  of  understanding  the  import  of  baptism. 
It  gives,  by  a  striking  figure,  a  conception  of  the  union  of  believers  with 
Christ  in  his  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  that  has  escaped,  we  see, 
the  most  sagacious  Christians  who  are  ignorant  of  the  ordinance. 

"  The  simple  meaning,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  is  this :  since,  in  our 
being  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  we  were  baptized  into  his  death, — 
into  the  faith  of  his  death  as  the  death  of  a  surety ;  we  may  be  con- 
sidered as,  by  faith,  partaking  with  him  in  his  death."  I  reply,  this 
partaking  is  a  real — not  a  figurative  partaking.  If  baptism  is  not  a 
figure  of  this,  there  was  no  occasion  to  allude  to  it  at  all.  The  author 
continues :  "  as  buried  with  him ;  and  that  with  the  special  end  of  our 
rising  with  him,  in  a  spiritual  resemblance  of  his  resurrection,  and 
'  walking  in  newness  of  life.'  "  But  does  not  Dr.  Wardlaw  see  that  we 
are  not  here  said  to  be  buried  ivith  him  by  faith,  but  buried  with  him  by 
baptism  into  death  1  This  burial  is  not  merely  a  burial  by  faith,  but  a 
burial  by  baptism.  The  language  imports,  also,  that  baptism  has  a 
reference  both  to  Christ's  resurrection,  and  our  new  life.  "  We  are 
buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death ;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised 
up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should 
walk  in  newness  of  life."  This  is  stated  as  the  end  of  baptism — not  as 
the  end  of  faith.  As  baptism  does  not  effect  these  things,  it  must  be 
viewed  as  a  figure.  Baptism  makes  us  die,  buries  us,  raises  us,  only  in 
figure ;  therefore  as  we  are  said  to  die,  to  be  buried,  and  to  rise  in 
baptism,  baptism  must  contain  a  likeness  to  these  things.  It  is  not  said 
that  we  are  buried  by  faith,  that  we  may  rise,  &c. ;  but  that  we  are  buried 
by  baptism  into  death,  that  we  may  rise,  &c.  All  these  things  are 
connected  with  baptism.  But  except  as  a  likeness  or  figure,  it  has  no 
connexion  with  them  at  all.  Any  other  ordinance  might  have  been 
equally  mentioned.  Rather,  there  was  no  need  for  the  mention  of  any 
ordinance,  on  the  supposition  that  there  is  no  likeness. 

But  that  baptism  contains  a  likeness  to  death,  is  in  this  passage 
expressly  asserted :  "  for  if  we  have  been  planted  together,  or  united, 
with  him  in  the  likeness  of  his  death."  Here  we  see  that  this  death  is  a 
symbolical  death.  It  is  a  likeness  to  death.  Now,  the  participation  in 
Christ's  death,  that  the  believer  has  by  faith,  is  not  a  likeness  to  death, 
but  a  real  death.  It  is,  by  the  Divine  constitution  of  the  union  that 
subsists  between  Christ  and  his  people,  his  own  death.  How,  then,  is 
there  in  baptism  a  likeness  to  death,  if  that  ordinance  is  not  by  immer- 
sion ?  Our  future  resurrection  is  also  figured  in  baptism  :  "  we  shall  be 
also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection."  In  Col.  ii.  12,  also,  we  are 
said  to  be  risen  with  Christ :  "  Buried  with  him  in  baptism  ;  wherein,  or 
in  which,  also  ye  are  risen  with  him."  Dr.  Wardlaw  asks,  How  is  it 
we  are  said  to  be  "risen  with  him?"  Undoubtedly  through  faith. 
Without  this  there  is  no  rising  to  new  life,  nor  will  there  be  to  glory.    But 


THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  161 

this  resurrection  is  notwithstanding  said  here  to  be  in  baptism.  It  must 
then  be  in  figure.  Dr.  Wardlaw  supposes  that  these  things  are  ascribed 
to  baptism  ;  "because  it  was  the  first  public  declaration  of  the  faith  of 
the  converts."  But  baptism  is  not  necessarily  a  public  declaration  of 
faith ;  nor  is  it  necessarily  the  first  public  declaration.  There  may  be 
many  instances  in  which  a  public  declaration  of  faith  is  made,  before 
there  is  any  opportunity  of  being  baptized.  Besides,  this  is  an  apocry- 
phal reason.  The  Scriptures  do  not  assign  it;  and  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
it  is  no  more  connected  with  salvation  than  the  Lord's  supper.  It  is 
not  in  baptism,  nor  by  means  of  baptism,  that  we  die  with  Christ  really, 
or  are  made  spiritually  alive.  This  death  and  this  life  take  place 
before  baptism.  Baptism,  then,  can  have  these  things  ascribed  to  it 
only  in  figure.  "It  is  on  the  same  principle,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "that 
they  are  spoken  of  as  in  baptism  'washing  away  their  sins.'"  All  these 
things  are  doubtless  spoken  on  the  same  principle.  But  that  principle 
is,  that  baptism  is  a  figure.  Baptism  washes  away  sins,  not  because  it 
is  the  first  ordinance,  but  because  it  is  an  emblematical  washing  of  the 
body  with  water.  Does  not  Dr.  Wardlaw  hold,  that  baptism  is  an 
emblem  of  washing  away  sin  ?  How  then  does  he  explain  the  phrase, 
icashing  aioay  sin  in  baptism,  on  the  principle  of  baptism  being  the  firsi 
ordinance  ?  We  wash  away  sins  in  baptism,  just  as  we  eat  the  flesh  of 
Jesus  in  the  Lord's  supper.  "  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it 
not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread  which  we  break, 
is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?"  How  is  the  cup  the  com- 
munion of  Christ's  blood?  How  is  the  bread  the  communion  of  his  body? 
In  figure.  And  when  the  figure  is  observed  in  faith,  the  real  commu- 
nion is  effected.  Just  so  baptism  washes  away  sin.  Just  so  in  baptism 
we  die,  we  are  buried,  and  we  rise.  But  the  truth  of  the  emblem  is 
effected,  not  by  baptism  in  any  sense,  but.  by  faith  of  the  operation  of 
God.  It  is  absurd  and  ridiculous  to  suppose,  that  an  ordinance  can 
wash  away  sin  in  any  other  than  a  figurative  sense.  Was  it  not  in  this 
way  that  Jewish  rites  were  said  to  make  an  atonement  and  to 
cleanse  from  sin?  The  first  ordinance  observed,  has  no  more  to  do 
with  these  things  than  the  last.  The  death,  burial,  and  resurrection, 
which  are  ascribed  to  baptism,  take  place  in  baptism,  and  by  means  of 
baptism.  The  washing  away  of  sins,  ascribed  to  baptism,  is  effected  by 
baptism.  This  washing,  this  death,  this  burial,  and  this  resurrection, 
then,  cannot  be  the  washing,  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  which  are 
effected  by  faith,  and  which  take  place  before  baptism.  If  the  washing 
away  of  sins,  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  ascribed  to  baptism, 
were  effected  previously,  and  by  other  means,  the  Scriptures  are  not 
true,  that  speak  of  them  as  effected  in  baptism,  and  by  baptism.  The 
reality  has  already  taken  place,  but  it  is  represented  in  figure  as  taking 
place  in  the  ordinance,  and  by  means  of  the  ordinance. 

"  In  Rom.  vi."  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  the  language  of  the  whole  passage 
is  figurative."  And  what  suppose  it  were  figurative?  Would  this 
imply  that  there  is  no  likeness?  When  death,  burial,  and  resurrection, 
are  used  figuratively,  they  must  of  necessity  have  a  likeness.  Will 
Dr.  Wardlaw  show  what  kind  of  figure  he  supposes  to  exist  here? 

21 


162  THE    MODE    OP    BAPTISM. 

Will  he  show  any  figure  that  will  justify  the  ascription  of  the  washing 
away  of  sin,  of  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  to  an  ordinance,  because 
it  is  the  first  ordinance  observed?  This  figure  he  will  look  for  in  vain, 
either  in  the  writings  of  rhetoricians,  or  the  practice  of  any  language. 
The  principle  on  which  I  hold  that  these  things  are  ascribed  to  bap- 
tism, I  have  verified  by  example,  and  justified  on  principle.  But  will 
Dr.  Wardlaw  recollect,  that  this  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  he  has, 
in  setting  out,  considered  as  effected  by  faith  ?  He  cannot,  then,  speak 
consistently  of  this  language  as  figurative.  But  though  he  talks  of  the 
simple  meaning  of  the  passage,  there  is  evidently  a  jumble  in  bis  own 
conceptions  of  this  meaning.  There  never  was  a  paragraph  farther 
from  simplicity,  than  that  which  he  has  employed  to  show  the  simple 
meaning  of  Rom.  vi.  1. 

The  fact,  however,  is,  that  in  the  expression  wash  away  si?i  by  bap- 
tism, death,  burial,  and  resurrection  in  baptism,  there  is  no  figure.  It 
is  a  figurative  action,  not  a  figurative  expression.  A  symbol  is  not  a 
figure  of  speech.  And  I  have  shown,  that  as  Dr.  Wardlaw  has  in  the 
commencement  explained  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  as  the  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection  which  we  have  by  faith  in  Christ,  dying  as 
our  surety,  to  speak  of  these  things  now  as  figurative  language,  is  to 
overturn  the  apostle's  argument,  and  to  deny  real  union  with  Christ  in 
his  work.  We  are  not  one  with  him  by  a  Divine  constitution,  as  we 
are  one  with  Adam,  but  merely  one  with  him  in  a  figurative  way  of 
speaking.  Dr.  Wardlaw,  then,  ejects  immersion  out  of  Rom.  vi.  only 
by  virtually  overturning  the  Gospel,  or  denying  real  oneness  with  Christ. 

"  The  same  principle  of  interpretation,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  accord- 
ing to  which  the  expression  '  buried  with  Christ '  is  explained,  as  referring 
to  the  representation  of  interment  by  the  immersion  of  the  body  under 
water,  should  lead  us  also  to  understand  the  phrase  which  immediately 
follows,  'planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,'  as  referring  to  an 
emblematic  representation  of  planting,  which,  accordingly,  some  have 
stretched  their  fancy  to  make  out."  If  the  word  sumphutoi  is  to  be 
translated  planted  together,  there  must  indeed  be  a  likeness  between 
baptism  and  planting ;  and  it  requires  no  stretch  of  fancy  to  discover 
a  likeness  between  the  burying  of  the  roots  of  plants  and  immersion  in 
water.  But  even  on  this  supposition,  the  word  is  metaphorical,  and 
while  it  equally  with  a  symbolical  action  requires  likeness,  it  does  not 
imply  that  baptism  is  an  emblem  of  planting.  Let  Dr.  Wardlaw  con- 
sider the  difference  between  a  figurative  word  and  a  figurative  action, 
and  he  will  withdraw  this  objection.  Baptism  is  here  explained  as  a 
symbolical  action,  representing  death,  burial,  and  resurrection.  The 
likeness  to  planting  is  illustrative,  not  symbolical.  The  phrase,  planting 
together,  proves  the  mode  of  baptism  ;  but  it  does  not  imply  that  there 
is  in  it  anything  emblematic  of  planting.  Dr.  Wardlaw  continues, 
"  or  the  phrase,  crucified  with  him,  to  some  similar  exhibition  of  cruci- 
fixion." But  does  not  Dr.  Wardlaw  perceive  that  we  are  not  said  to  be 
crucified  with  Christ  in  baptism?  We  are  indeed  crucified  with  him — 
really  and  truly  crucified  with  him — not  in  baptism,  but  by  faith  in 
his  cross.     We  were  nailed  to  the  tree,  when  he  was  nailed,  because  by 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  163 

the  Divine  constitution  we  are  one  with  him.  But,  according  to  Dr. 
Wardlaw's  explanation  of  this  passage,  we  might  as  well  be  said  to  be 
crucified  in  baptism,  as  buried  in  baptism.  If  there  is  no  allusion  to 
burial  in  baptism,  more  than  to  crucifixion,  why  are  we  not  said  to  be 
crucified  in  baptism  ?  If  we  are  really  crucified  with  him  by  faith  in 
his  cross,  why  might  we  not,  on  Dr.  Wardlaw's  principle,  be  said  to  be 
crucified  in  baptism,  and  by  means  of  baptism,  because  it  is  the  first 
ordinance  in  which  we  profess  faith  in  the  cross  of  Christ?  But  there 
is  no  such  absurdity  of  expression  in  the  Scriptures. 

After  all  the  labours  of  Mr.  Ewing  and  Dr.  Wardlaw  on  this  passage, 
I  could  safely  rest  my  cause  on  a  candid  reading  of  it  by  the  most 
unlettered  good  sense.  To  a  reflecting  mind,  nothing  can  more  strongly 
prove  the  impossibility  of  diverting  these  words  from  giving  their  testi- 
mony in  favour  of  immersion,  than  that  one  of  these  learned  and  inge- 
nious writers  could  find  no  other  way  to  effect  his  purpose,  but  by 
forcing  burial  to  denote  embalming  or  washing  the  dead  ;  and  the  other 
by  denying  that  the  passage  implies  any  likeness  between  baptism  and 
burial.  These  extravagances  are  so  enormous,  that  every  sober  mind 
may  see  that  the  cause  that  requires  them  is  desperate.  I  ask  any  man 
who  fears  God  and  trembles  at  his  word,  is  Christ's  burial  merely  the 
washing  of  his  corpse,  and  not  his  being  laid  in  the  sepulchre?  I  ask, 
does  the  phrase  "  buried  with  baptism  by  death"  import  no  likeness  be- 
tween baptism  and  burial  ? 

Dr.  Wardlaw  observes,  "  according  to  our  Baptist  brethren,  tvashing 
or  cleansing,  so  far  from  being  the  exclusive,  is  not  even  the  principal, 
but  only  a  secondary  meaning  of  the  rite."  In  this  he  is  mistaken. 
Death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  we  do  not  consider  as  the  primary  mean- 
ing of  baptism ;  and  washing  away  sin,  as  a  secondary  meaning.  It 
takes  both  together  to  make  one  meaning.  The  ordinance  has  one 
meaning  only.  It  not  only  signifies  washing  away  sin  through  faith  in 
the  blood  of  Christ,  but  denotes  that  such  sins  are  washed  away  by  our 
fellowship  with  him  in  his  death.  Washing  away  of  sin  is  the  thing 
which  it  always  signifies  :  but  this  is  not  the  whole  of  its  meaning.  If. 
is  then  to  no  purpose  that  Dr.  Wardlaw  insists  that  sprinkling  and 
pouring  may  be  an  emblem  of  cleansing.  They  are  no  emblems  of  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection,  which  are  figured  in  baptism. 

Another  passage  that  favours  our  view  of  the  mode  and  import  of 
baptism,  is  1  Cor.  xv.  29.  "  Else  what  shall  they  do  which  are  baptized 
for  the  dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all  ?  Why  are  they  then  baptized 
for  the  dead?"  There  must  be  an  argument  here,  and  this  object  of 
baptism  must  be  a  scriptural  object,  otherwise  it  could  not  be  an  argu- 
ment. Indeed,  though  to  us  the  passage  may  be  difficult  from  difference 
of  circumstances  with  respect  to  those  immediately  addressed,  yet  it  is 
evident  that  the  apostle  considers  the  argument  as  very  obvious  and  con- 
vincing. Now,  to  consider  the  expression  to  be  a  reference  to  the  mode 
and  import  of  baptism,  as  implying  an  emblem  of  the  resurrection  of 
believers,  will  afford  a  natural  meaning  to  the  words,  and  an  important 
argument  to  the  apostle.  Baptism  is  an  ordinance  that  represents  our 
burial  and  resurrection  with  Christ.     We  are  baptized,  hi  the  hope  that 


164  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

our  dead  bodies  shall  rise  from  the  grave.  Now,  if  there  is  no  resurrec- 
tion, why  are  we  baptized?  On  that  supposition,  there  is  no  meaning 
in  baptism.  It  is  absurd  for  any  to  be  baptized,  baptism  being  a  figure 
of  a  resurrection,  if  they  do  not  believe  in  a  resurrection.  Heb.  x.  22, 
is  on  both  sides  allowed  to  have  a  reference  to  baptism ;  and  to  me  it 
appears  evident,  that  the  whole  body  was  covered  with  water.  "  Let  us 
draw  near  with  a  true  heart,  in  full  assurance  of  faith,  having  our  hearts 
sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies  washed  with  pure 
water."  Here  the  heart  is  said  to  be  sprinkled  in  allusion  to  the  appli- 
cation of  the  blood  of  the  sacrifices ;  and  the  body,  in  allusion  to  the 
bathings  under  the  law,  is  said  to  be  washed  in  pure  water,  referring  to 
the  ordinance  of  baptism.  Now,  the  pouring  of  a  little  water  in  the  face 
is  not  a  washing  of  the  body.  I  admit,  that  sprinkling  a  little  water  on 
any  part  of  the  body  might  be  an  emblem  of  purification  ;  but  this  would 
not  be  called  a  washing  of  the  body.  The  passage  which  Mr.  Ewing 
brings  to  justify  his  view  of  this  verse,  is  not  parallel.  "  For,  in  that 
she  hath  poured  this  ointment  on  my  body,  she  did  it  for  my  burial," 
Matt.  xxvi.  12.  "  This  instance,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  of  calling  what  was 
poured  on  the  head,  a  pouring  on  the  body,  illustrates  what  is  said  of 
baptism  which  is  in  itself  a  pouring  on  the  face  only,  but  which,  being 
a  figure  of  washing,  is  called  a  washing  of  the  body."  Our  Lord's 
expression  is  quite  literal,  and  has  no  emblem.  The  smallest  quantity 
of  water  poured  on  any  part  of  the  body,  is  as  truly  poured  on  the  body 
as  if  the  whole  body  was  covered.  Water  is  literally  poured  on  the 
body,  if  poured  on  any  part  of  the  body.  But  when  the  body  is  said  to 
be  washed,  it  implies  that  the  whole  body  is  washed.  Washing  a  part 
of  the  body,  is  not  washing  the  body.  Let  us  have  an  example  in  which 
the  pouring  of  a  little  water  on  a  part  of  an  object,  is  called  the  washing 
of  the  object.  The  bodies  of  the  priests  were  washed  on  entering  on 
their  office.  Shall  we  say  that  this  may  have  been  the  pouring  of  a 
little  water  on  their  head  ?  Though  I  do  not  agree  with  Dr.  Campbell, 
that  louo  cannot  be  applied  to  a  part,  yet  it  is  so  generally  appropriated 
to  the  bathing  of  the  whole  body,  that  in  medical  use  it  is  employed  with- 
out a  regimen  in  that  sense.  If  any  part  is  not  to  be  bathed,  it  must  be 
expressly  excepted,  as  except  the  head. 

"  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,"  John  iii.  5,  is 
another  expression  which  is  admitted  to  refer  to  baptism ;  and  has  its 
explanation  most  intelligibly  in  emersion  out  of  the  water  in  that  ordi- 
nance. To  emerge  out  of  the  water,  is  like  a  birth;  and  to  be  born  of  wa- 
ter, as  distinguished  from  being  born  of  the  Spirit,  is  to  be  born  of  the  truth 
represented  by  the  water.  We  are  regenerated  both  by  the  word  and 
Spirit.  We  are  born  into  the  kingdom  of  God  by  the  agency  of  his 
Spirit,  through  the  belief  of  the  word  that  testifies  the  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection  of  Christ,  and  our  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  with  him. 
Christ,  therefore,  is  said  to  have  given  himself  for  his  church,  that  he 
might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  icatcr  by  the  word, 
Ephes.  v.  26.  The  washing  of  water  is  by  the  word,  which  is  figura- 
tively done  in  baptism.  In  like  manner,  we  are  said  to  be  saved  "'by 
the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  Tit.  iii.  5. 


THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  165 

We  are  also  said  to  be  "  washed  and  sanctified,"  1  Cor.  vi.  11,  in  reference 
to  the  cleansing  from  sin  by  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  as  well  as  to 
the  renewing  of  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Section  XVII. — Strictures  on  Mr.  Ewing's  Miscellaneous  Re- 
marks on  the  Hypothesis  of  Immersion. — I  have,  in  a  great  measure, 
anticipated  anything  that  I  judge  necessary  on  Mr.  Ewing's  Miscellaneous 
Remarks  on  the  Hypothesis  of  Immersion.  I  cannot,  however,  dismiss  the 
subject  without  more  expressly  entering  my  protest  against  the  grounds  of 
his  reasoning  in  this  part  of  his  work.  They  appear  to  me  both  false  and 
dangerous.  Immersion  he  considers  as  indecent  and  indelicate,  and  in 
several  cases  he  attempts  to  prove  its  impracticability.  "  The  immersion 
of  one  person  by  another,''  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  except  in  cases  of  necessity 
or  mercy,  seems  to  be  contrary  to  decency,  and  to  the  respect  which  we 
owe  to  one  another."  Mr.  Ewing  commences  very  properly,  by  saying, 
"  I  feel  it  incumbent  on  me  to  enforce  my  conviction  on  others,  by  every 
consideration  which  the  examination  of  the  Scriptures  on  the  subject  has 
suggested  to  my  mind."  By  all  means,  let  us  have  every  thing  that  the 
Scriptures  suggest  on  this  subject.  Pray  now,  Mr.  Ewing,  was  it  the 
Scriptures  that  suggested  this  objection  ?  This  is  an  appeal  to  our  pride 
against  the  law  of  Christ, — an  appeal,  however,  that  is  likely  to  have 
more  weight  with  some,  than  an  appeal  to  the  word  of  God.  But  is 
there  more  dignity  and  delicacy  in  pouring  water  into  a  person's  turned 
up  face,  out  of  the  hand,  so  that  some  of  the  water  must  be  swallowed? 
Had  Mr.  Ewing,  however,  established  this  from  the  Scriptures,  he 
would  have  heard  no  objection  from  me  on  this  ground.  I  would  not 
take  the  responsibility  of  this  argument  for  all  the  wealth  of  the  city  of 
Glasgow.  Let  Mr.  Ewing  take  care  that  he  is  not  enlisting  the  corrup- 
tion of  the  Christian's  heart  against  the  appointment  of  Jesus.  Does  not 
Mr.  Ewing  see  that  the  respect  we  owe  to  one  another  has  no  concern  in 
the  question  ?  If  it  suits  the  wisdom  of  Christ's  appointments  that  one 
person  should  be  immersed  by  another,  even  were  it  a  real  humiliation, 
it  is  to  Christ  we  stoop.  That  God's  institutions  cannot  foster  any  of  the 
corruptions  of  our  nature,  is  self-evident ;  but  that  they  should  consult 
our  sentiments  of  dignity  and  delicacy,  is  a  thing  that  no  one  acquainted 
with  the  Scriptures  ought  to  assert.  Has  Mr.  Ewing  never  read  the  Old 
Testament  ?  Did  he  never  hear  of  such  a  thing  as  circumcision  ?  Has 
he  forgotten  the  transaction  in  Abraham's  house  on  the  institution  of 
that  ordinance  ?  Was  there  more  dignity  in  that  operation,  with  respect 
to  the  father  of  the  faithful,  and  the  males  of  his  house,  than  there 
is  in  immersion  in  water.  What  shall  we  say  of  the  transaction  at 
the  Hill  of  Foreskins?  What  shall  we  say  of  many  parts  of  the  law 
of  Moses?  What  shall  we  say  of  many  parts  both  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  New  ?  Try  them  by  Mr.  Ewing's  test,  and  they  must  be 
expunged  from  the  book  of  God.  Infidelity  here  may  have  a  plausible 
handle,  though  no  just  ground  of  objection.  But  in  immersion,  with 
respect  both  to  males  and  females,  there  is  none.  Mr.  Ewing's  caricature 
of  the  immersion  of  females,  is  so  much  in  the  spirit  of  the  means  by 
which  the  Church  of  Rome  keeps  the  higher  ranks  from  reading  the 


166  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Scriptures,  that  I  have  no  language  strong  enough  to  express  my  feelings 
of  abhorrence.  "  Shall  you  permit  your  wives  and  daughters,"  say  the 
enemies  of  the  Scriptures,  "  to  read  the  indelicate  statements  of  the 
Bible?"  It  is  said  that  there  is  no  more  usual  argument  to  dissuade  the 
higher  classes  in  France  from  reading  the  Scriptures  than  their  indelicacy. 
They  are  told  that  the  Bible,  on  this  account,  is  the  very  worst  of  books 
that  can  be  put  into  the  hands  of  youth.  And  shall  the  man  of  God 
blow  the  trumpet  of  Satan  in  the  camp  of  Israel?  If  immersion  is  an 
ordinance  of  Christ,  it  is  a  fearful  thing  to  oppose  it  by  such  an  engine. 
It  is  not  the  first  time,  however,  that  Jesus  has  been  rebuked  as  a  sinner. 
In  the  estimation  of  the  Pharisees,  he  broke  the  sabbath ;  he  was  charged 
as  a  wine-bibber  and  a  glutton ;  and  it  is  not  strange  that  the  wisdom  of 
this  world  should  find  indelicacy  in  his  ordinances. 

Mr.  Ewing  thinks  himself  very  strong,  with  respect  to  the  argument 
from  the  scarcity  of  water ;  and  no  doubt  he  will  appear  so  to  a  numer- 
ous class  of  his  readers.  But  the  argument,  instead  of  having  weight, 
cannot  be  admitted  to  a  hearing  by  any  one  who  understands  the  nature 
of  evidence.  All  the  information  that  can  be  collected  at  this  distance 
of  time,  cannot  assure  us  that  there  were  not  other  resources  of  water, 
of  which  we  have  no  account.  Mr.  Ewing  may  say  that  the  pool  of 
Bethesda  may  have  been  sufficient  only  for  one  person  to  go  down  at  a 
time.  Well,  if  my  cause  obliged  me  to  prove  that  it  admitted  two, 
I  grant  that  I  could  not  prove  it.  But  I  am  not  bound  to  proof.  I  may 
say  that  it  may  have  admitted  a  hundred  to  go  down  at  once,  and  the 
bare  possibility  is  enough  to  remove  the  objection.  Neither  of  us  can 
prove  the  dimensions  of  it.  If,  then,  there  had  been  no  water  in  Jeru- 
salem but  this  pool,  I  am  at  liberty  to  suppose  that  it  might  have  sufficed. 
The  pool  of  Siloam  may  have  been  only  sufficient  to  wash  the  eyes,  but 
it  may  have  been  sufficient  to  float  a  ship.  This  is  quite  enough  for 
me.  If  immersion  is  not  impossible  in  some  of  the  places  where  baptism 
was  performed,  no  man  who  understands  reasoning  will  object  on  this 
ground. 

Were  I  engaged  with  Mr.  Ewing,  even  in  an  historical  controversy, 
with  respect  to  the  supply  of  water  in  Jerusalem  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  I  could  easily  show  that  his  conclusions  are  unwarranted.  He 
depends  on  the  accounts  of  modern  travellers.  I  would  admit  their 
statements,  and  deny  the  consequence.  Must  the  supply  of  water  be  the 
same  now  as  it  was  then?  Aqueducts  and  reservoirs  may  have  then 
existed,  of  which  there  are  no  remains.  Herod,  at  great  expense, 
brought  water  to  the  city  by  aqueducts,  from  a  considerable  distance; 
and  the  pools,  and  fountains,  and  rivers,  cannot  now  be  estimated.  The 
supply  of  water  to  the  city  of  God,  could  not  be  inadequate  to  the  wants 
of  the  inhabitants,  and  to  the  use  of  it  in  legal  purifications,  which 
required  abundant  resources.  Shall  we  judge  of  the  supply  of  water  in 
the  days  of  the  apostles,  by  that  of  the  present  time,  when  Jerusalem  is 
suffering  under  the  curse  ?  How  much  depended  at  that  time  upon  rain? 
Is  there  reason  to  think  that  the  supply  is  equal  at  present?  Earth- 
quakes alter  the  course  of  rivers,  and  often  seal  up  fountains.  In  the 
year  1182,  as  Goldsmith  relates,  most  of  the  cities  of  Syria,  and  the 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  167 

kingdom  of  Jerusalem,  were  destroyed  by  an  earthquake.  Mr.  Gibbon 
makes  a  like  objection  to  the  Scripture  account  of  the  fertility  of  Judea. 
The  present  barrenness  of  that  country,  he  considers  as  proof  of  the 
falsehood  of  the  accounts  of  its  ancient  fertility.  This,  which  may  ap- 
pear to  many  very  sage,  is  in  reality  very  shallow.  There  are  many  pos- 
sible ways  in  which  the  fertility  of  that  country  may  differ  at  different 
times.  The  peasants  of  Switzerland  draw  walls  of  stone  across  their 
declivities,  to  keep  up  the  mould  which  industry  has  brought  to  the 
nourishment  of  their  vines.  If  these  were  for  a  few  years  neglected,  the 
rains  would  sweep  away  all  their  labours,  and  there  would  be  nothing  in 
the  place  of  luxuriance,  but  barrenness  and  naked  rocks.  Must  the 
brook  Kedron  have  been  as  scanty  as  it  is  now  ?  Mr.  Ewing  tells  us 
that,  like  other  brooks  in  cities,  it  was  contaminated.  Did  the  filth  run 
up  the  stream  ?  and  could  they  not  have  baptized  where  it  entered  the  city, 
or  upwards?  The  very  attempt  to  prove,  at  this  distance  of  time,  that 
there  could  not  be  water  in  or  near  Jerusalem  for  immersion,  is  absurd. 
I  would  hold  this,  were  the  question  merely  an  historical  one.  But  if 
the  Holy  Spirit  testifies  that  the  disciples  were  baptized  on  believing  the 
gospel,  and  if  I  have  proved  that  this  word  signifies  to  immerse,  then, 
though  there  were  real  difficulties  on  the  subject,  I  am  entitled  to  sup- 
pose that  there  must  have  been  in  some  place  a  supply  of  water. 

John  the  Baptist  had  enough  of  water  in  the  Jordan ;  but  if  there  is 
enough  of  water,  there  are,  it  seems,  other  wants.  "  In  the  course  of  his 
ministry,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  he  drew  his  illustrations,  like  his  Master, 
who  came  after  him,  from  the  objects  surrounding  him  at  the  time.  But 
he  says  nothing  of  the  stream,  of  its  depth,  of  its  rapidity,  of  its  strength, 
of  its  overflowings,  of  its  billows,  of  its  qualities  of  purification."  Was 
ever  anything  so  childish  put  upon  paper?  Can  any  mind  suppose  that 
there  is  argument  in  this?  Did  ever  John  the  Baptist  illustrate  his  sub- 
ject by  allusions  to  popping?  Is  the  absence  of  any  such  allusions,  to 
be  received  as  evidence  that  there  was  not  immersion  in  baptism? 

"As  a  teacher,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "you  never  find  him  in  the  river." 
Does  this  say  that,  as  a  baptizer,  he  might  not  have  been  in  the  river? 
Such  arguments  are  not  only  unsound,  but  absurd.  Whenever  they 
have  any  weight,  there  must  be  an  indistinctness  of  vision,  as  to  the  na- 
ture of  evidence. 

I  will  not  go  out  of  my  way  to  look  for  water  to  immerse  the  disciples 
of  Sychar  in  Samaria.  If  Mr.  Ewing  knows  that  they  were  baptized, 
from  the  usual  practice,  I  know  they  were  immersed,  from  the  meaning 
of  the  word.  Had  I  no  other  resource,  I  would  make  Jacob's  well  sup- 
ply me.  But  as  it  is  not  said  where  they  were  baptized,  I  will  make 
them  conduct  Christ  and  the  apostles  on  their  way,  till  they  come  to 
water.  I  care  not  where  the  water  is  to  be  found ;  if  they  were  baptized, 
they  were  immersed. 

Mr.  Ewing,  as  well  as  Dr.  Wardlaw,  learns  from  Peter's  phraseology, 
"can  any  man  forbid  water?"  that  the  water  was  to  be  brought  to  the 
place.  And  if  this  were  certain,  it  affects  not  the  question.  Must  the 
observance  of  the  ordinances  of  Christ  never  put  us  to  trouble  ?  But  the 
expression  imports  no  more,  than  "who  can  forbid  baptism  to  the  per- 


168  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

sons  who  have  already  received  the  Holy  Spirit?"  without  any  respect 
to  mode. 

The  phraseology  of  Ananias,  it  seems,  forbids  immersion  : — "Arise, 
and  be  baptized."  Where  is  the  proof  here?  Why,  there  is  no  going 
down  to  the  water,  nor  coming  up  from  it.  Is  there  any  man  so  frantic 
as  to  suppose,  that  this  phraseology  must  apply  to  every  baptism?  Bap- 
tism in  a  bath,  is  as  good  as  baptism  in  the  Jordan. 

But  Paul  was  baptized  after  a  three  day's  fast,  before  he  had  received 
either  meat  or  strength.  "  Would  this  have  been  done,"  we  are  asked, 
"  had  his  baptism  been  immersion  ?"  It  was  done,  yet  his  baptism  was 
immersion.  From  this,  let  us  learn  that  baptism  is  not  a  thing  to  be 
trifled  with,  but  ought  to  be  performed  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  be- 
lief of  the  truth.  It  would  give  me  great  pleasure,  if  Mr.  Ewing  would 
make  this  use  of  the  circumstance.  He  has  certainly  delayed  his  bap- 
tism much  too  long. 

But  the  jailer — How  shall  Ave  find  water  to  immerse  the  jailer  ?  "  The 
argument,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  that  there  was  a  bath  in  the  jail  at  Philippi, 
because  there  is  a  very  fine  tank  at  Calcutta,  and  always  is  one  to  be 
found  in  an  eastern  jail,  may  be  illustrated  in  this  manner :  There  was 
a  stove  in  the  jail  at  Philippi,  because  there  is  a  very  fine  one  in  the  jail 
at  St.  Petersburgh,  and  always  is  one  to  be  found  in  a  northern  jail." 
Does  Mr.  Ewing  suppose  that  his  opponents  are  bound  to  prove  that 
there  must  have  been  a  bath  in  the  jail  at  Philippi  ?  That  there  may 
have  been  one,  js  quite  sufficient  for  our  purpose.  Even  this  is  not  ne- 
cessary. Any  vessel  that  will  hold  a  sufficient  quantity  of  water,  will 
serve  us  equally  well.  Besides,  for  any  thing  in  the  narrative,  the  bap- 
tism might  have  taken  place  in  any  part  of  the  town.  It  is  madness  to 
suppose  that  immersion  was  here  impossible ;  and  if  it  was  not  impossi- 
ble, the  objection  is  not  valid.  There  might  have  been  a  thousand  ways 
of  obtaining  water  of  which  we  are  ignorant.  To  suppose  that  it  is  ne- 
cessary to  produce,  from  the  history,  an  actual  supply  of  water,  in  the 
case  of  every  baptism,  implies  a  radical  error  with  respect  to  the  first 
principles  of  evidence.  The  jailer  and  his  household  were  baptized, 
therefore  they  were  immersed.  What  sober  mind  will  go  in  quest  of  the 
water,  in  a  foreign  country,  at  the  distance  of  nearly  two  thousand 
years. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

Section  I. — Having  ascertained  the  mode  and  the  meaning  of  this 
ordinance,  I  shall  now  inquire  who  are  the  subjects  of  it.  If  our  minds 
were  uninfluenced  by  prejudice,  this  inquiry  would  not  be  tedious.  We 
have  the  answer  obviously  in  the  words  of  the  apostolical  commission : 
"  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them 
to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you :  and,  lo,  I  am 
with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.  Amen."    Matt,  xxviii.  19. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  word  corresponding  to  teach,  in  the  first 
instance  in  which  it  occurs  in  this  passage,  signifies  to  disciple,  or  make 
scholars.  To  disciple  all  nations,  is  to  bring  them  by  faith  into  the 
school  of  Christ,  in  which  they  are  to  learn  his  will.  The  persons,  then, 
whom  this  commission  warrants  to  be  baptized,  are  scholars  of  Christ, 
having  believed  in  him  for  salvation.  If  this  needed  confirmation,  it 
has  it  in  the  record  of  the  commission  by  Mark :  "  Go  ye  into  all  the 
world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth  and 
is  baptized,  shall  be  saved  ;  but  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned." 
Here  the  persons  whom  Matthew  calls  disciples,  Mark  calls  believers. 
According  to  this  commission,  then,  none  are  warranted  to  be  baptized 
but  disciples  or  believers.  But  our  opponents  affect  to  treat  this  pas- 
sage as  not  at  all  to  the  purpose ;  alleging,  that  though  it  commands 
believers  to  be  baptized,  it  does  not  exclude  the  infants  of  believers. 
They  consider  this  as  common  ground,  and  as  teaching  a  doctrine  which 
they  do  not  deny,  without  opposing  the  peculiar  doctrine  which  they 
hold.  Accordingly,  they  run  over  this  commission  with  the  greatest 
apparent  ease,  and  are  amazed  at  the  want  of  perspicacity  in  their  oppo- 
nents, who  see  in  it  anything  unfavourable  to  the  baptism  of  infants. 
Now,  this  evidence  strikes  me  in  so  very  different  a  light,  that  I  am 
willing  to  hang  the  whole  controversy  on  this  passage.  If  I  had  not 
another  passage  in  the  word  of  God,  I  would  engage  to  refute  my  oppo- 
nents from  the  words  of  this  commission  alone.  Dr.  Wardlaw  thinks 
he  has  shown  as  clear  as  a  sunbeam,  that  the  words  of  this  commission 
have  no  bearing  on  the  subject.  I  will  risk  the  credit  of  my  under- 
standing, on  my  success  in  showing  that,  according  to  this  commission, 
believers  only  are  to  be  baptized.     It  is  impossible  that  a  command  to 

22  169 


170  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

baptize  believers,  can  be  extended  to  include  any  but  believers.  We 
need  not  say  tbat  this  cannot  be  done  by  inference ;  I  say  it  cannot  be 
done  by  the  most  express  command  or  explanation.  No  command,  no 
explanation,  can  bring  unbelievers  into  the  commission  that  enjoins 
the  baptism  of  believers.  Even  if  I  found  another  command,  enjoining 
the  baptism  of  the  infants  of  believers,  I  should  not  move  an  inch  from 
my  position.  I  should  still  say,  this  is  not  included  in  the  apostolical 
commission.  This  is  another  commission,  and  cannot  interfere  with  the 
former.  This  would  establish  the  baptism  of  infants,  indeed ;  but  it 
would  not  be  according  to  this  commission,  nor  included  in  it.  It  would 
be  another  baptism,  far  more  different  from  the  baptism  of  this  com- 
mission, than  the  baptism  of  John  was  from  that  of  the  apostles.  This 
command  to  baptize  the  infants  of  believers,  would  not  be  according  to 
the  command  to  baptize  believers.  There  would  then  be  two  baptisms, 
on  quite  different  grounds ;  the  one  on  the  ground  of  faith,  the  other  on 
the  ground  of  descent.  Talk  not,  then,  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  and 
of  circumcision;  if  a  baptism,  or  any  other  New  Testament  ordinance, 
must  be  found  to  correspond  to  these,  it  cannot  be  forced  into  the  bap- 
tism commanded  in  this  commission.  I  would  gainsay  an  angel  from 
heaven,  who  should  say  that  this  commission  may  extend  to  the  baptism 
of  any  but  believers.  His  assertion  would  imply  a  contradiction.  It 
would  imply  that  the  same  persons  may  be,  at  the  same  time,  both 
believers  and  unbelievers.  Here,  then,  I  stand  entrenched,  and  I  defy 
the  ingenuity  of  earth  and  hell  to  drive  me  from  my  position.     This 

COMMISSION  TO  BAPTIZE  BELIEVERS,  DOES  NOT  INDEED  IMPLY  THAT  IT  IS 
IMPOSSIBLE  THAT  ANOTHER  COMMISSION  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN  GIVEN  TO 
BAPTIZE  INFANTS,  BUT,  BY  NECESSITY,  IT  EXCLUDES  THEM  FOR  EVER 
FROM  BEING  INCLUDED  IN  THIS  COMMAND.  If  INFANTS  ARE  BAPTIZED, 
IT  IS  FROM  ANOTHER  COMMISSION  ;  AND  IT  IS  ANOTHER  BAPTISM,  FOUNDED 
ON  ANOTHER  PRINCIPLE. 

But  not  only  does  this  commission  exclude  infants  from  the  baptism 
it  enjoins:  if  there  were  even  another  commission  enjoining  the  baptism 
of  infants,  when  these  infants,  who  have  been  baptized  in  infancy, 
according  to  this  supposed  second  commission,  believe  the  gospel,  they 
must  be  baptized  according  to  the  commission,  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  with- 
out any  regard  to  their  baptism  in  infancy.  The  commission  com- 
mands all  men  to  be  baptized  on  believing  the  gospel.  Had  there  been 
even  a  divinely  appointed  baptism  for  them  in  infancy,  it  cannot  inter- 
fere with  this  baptism,  nor  excuse  from  obedience  to  the  command 
that  enjoins  believers  to  be  baptized.  The  command  of  Jesus  to  every 
believer  to  be  baptized,  stands  engraven  in  indelible  characters  in  this 
commission.  Till  the  trumpet  sounds  for  judgment,  it  cannot  be  effaced. 
I  call  on  all  believers,  on  their  allegiance  to  the  Son  of  God,  to  submit 
to  this  ordinance  of  his  kingdom.  Heaven  and  earth  will  pass  away, 
before  it  will  cease  to  be  a  duty  for  believers  to  be  baptized.  I  main- 
tain that  it  is  impossible  for  any  explanation,  or  any  express  command 
for  another  baptism,  to  excuse  them  from  this.  Is  there  any  power 
on  earth  to  abrogate  this  command?  Who  can  alter  it,  or  substitute 
another  baptism  for  it  ?     Till  the  end  of  the  world,  it  will  remain  a 


THE  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM.  171 

duty  for  all  believers  to  be  baptized.  Who  is  he  that  dares  to  substitute 
infant  baptism  for  the  baptism  of  believers?  Whoever  he  is,  he  is  the 
man  who,  by  his  tradition,  makes  void  the  law  of  God.  Our  Lord 
charged  the  traditions  of  the  Pharisees,  not  only  as  the  commandments 
of  men  in  the  things  of  God,  but  also  as  making  void  the  commandments 
of  God.  He  alleged  one  instance  in  which  the  command  of  God  was 
made  void  by  the  traditions  of  the  Pharisees.  God  commanded  the 
children  to  support  their  parents  if  they  needed  it ;  but  the  Pharisees,  by 
an  invention  of  their  own,  eluded  this  command.  Just  so  with  infant 
baptism.  It  has  usurped  the  place  of  believer  baptism ;  and,  as  far  as 
it  is  received,  sets  the  ordinance  of  God  aside  altogether.  So  it  happens, 
that  this  great  law  of  the  kingdom,  that  Jesus  has  connected  so  promi- 
nently with  the  truth  itself;  this  ordinance,  that,  in  so  lively  a  manner, 
exhibits  that  truth  in  a  figure  to  be  observed  immediately  after  its 
reception,  is  now  generally  set  aside.  Believer  baptism  is  virtually 
abolished,  and  expressly  explained  as  fit  only  for  the  first  reception  of 
Christianity  in  every  country.  Why,  my  brethren,  do  ye  make  void  the 
law  of  God  by  your  traditions? 

But  Dr.  Wardlaw  will  say,  "the  reply  to  this  is  simple  and  satisfactory." 
"  Suppose,"  says  he,  "  the  ordinance  of  circumcision  had  been  to 
continue,  and  the  command  had  run  in  these  terms: — 'Go ye, therefore, 
and  disciple  all  nations,  circumcising  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,'  &c. 
Had  such  language  been  used,  we  should  have  known  that  children  were 
to  be  the  subjects  of  the  prescribed  rite,  as  well  as  their  parents :  the 
previously  existing  practice  would  have  ascertained  this."  I  deny  it,  Dr. 
Wardlaw.  I  will  not  be  driven  from  my  position  by  circumcision  more 
than  by  baptism.  Had  such  a  commission  been  given  to  circumcise,  it 
would  have  excluded  infants  utterly.  Could  a  command  to  circumcise 
believers,  include  a  command  to  circumcise  any  but  believers  ?  This  is 
impossible.  No  matter  what  was  the  former  practice  with  respect  to 
circumcision.  If  the  apostles  are  commanded  to  circumcise  believers, 
they  cannot,  in  virtue  of  that  commission,  circumcise  any  but  believers. 
I  will  say,  also,  that  if  we  met  in  another  part  of  Scripture,  a  command 
to  circumcise  the  infants  of  believers,  it  would  not  be  included  in  the 
apostolical  commission.  A  command  to  circumcise  believers,  can  extend 
to  none  but  believers.  But  Dr.  Wardlaw  will  say,  we  know  that  the 
Jews  did  circumcise  infants.  We  do  indeed  know  this,  but  are  we  to 
do  every  thing  that  was  enjoined  on  the  Jews?  This  commission  to 
circumcise  believers,  would  exclude  the  circumcision  of  infants ;  because 
it  extends  to  none  but  believers.  The  Jewish  practice  as  to  circum- 
cision, could  not  show  what  must  be  the  Christian  practice  as  to  this 
rite,  had  it  been  appointed  as  a  Christian  ordinance ;  and  no  practice 
could  reduce  infant  circumcision  to  a  commission  enjoining  believer 
circumcision.  I  stand  then  to  my  position  as  well  if  a  Jewish  ordinance 
is  adopted,  as  if  a  new  ordinance  is  introduced.  A  command  to  believers 
to  observe  any  ordinance  whatever,  can  never  imply  any  but  believers. 
This  is  as  clear  as  the  light  of  heaven.  It  is  a  first  truth.  The  denial 
of  it  implies  a  contradiction.  "  Would  they,"  (the  apostles)  says  Dr. 
Wardlaw,  "  certainly  have  inferred  from  it,  that,  although  the  same  rite 


172  THE  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 

was  to  continue,  there  was  to  be  a  change  in  the  subjects  of  it  1"  There 
is  no  need  of  any  inference  on  the  subject.  That  believers,  in  such  a 
supposed  commission,  are  the  only  subjects  of  the  rite  enjoined  on 
believers,  would  be  self-evident  to  all  who  are  capable  of  understanding 
the  terms.  What  inconsistency  would  they  see  in  the  continuation  of 
the  same  rite,  while  the  subjects  of  it  were  changed  ?  Had  the  paschal 
lamb  been  continued  instead  of  the  Lord's  supper,  would  it  imply 
that  all  who  among  the  Jews  ate  the  passover,  should  eat  it  among 
Christians  ? 

Suppose  the  government  gives  orders  to  the  colonel  of  a  regiment,  to 
fill  up  a  certain  company  with  men  six  feet  high.  The  colonel  sends  out 
his  recruiting  officers  with  instructions  accordingly.  When  the  recruits 
are  brought  to  the  standard,  they  are  found  in  general  to  measure  only 
five  feet  eight  inches.  Have  the  recruiting  officers  fulfilled  their  com- 
mission ?  Did  not  the  instructions  that  mentioned  six  feet  high  as  the 
standard,  forbid  all  under  that  measure  to  be  enlisted?  It  is  not 
possible  to  bring  into  the  commission  any  who  come  short  of  that 
measure.  What  can  justify  those  who  have  been  guilty  of  such  a 
neglect  of  orders  ?  What  can  screen  them  from  the  displeasure  of  their 
colonel  ?  They  have  wasted  the  king's  money,  they  have  suffered  the 
time  appointed  to  elapse,  and  what  is  worst  of  all,  they  have  disobeyed 
orders.  But  a  flippant  recruiting  sergeant,  instructed  by  Dr.  Wardlaw, 
stands  forward  in  his  defence.  "  Stop  a  little,  colonel,  I  will  prove  to 
you  that  our  conduct  is  entirely  justifiable.  Nay,  except  you  had 
positively  forbidden  us  to  enlist  any  under  six  feet,  we  were  warranted 
to  conclude  that  we  were  not  limited.  It  is  true,  that  our  commission 
mentions  six  feet  as  the  standard,  but  did  we  not  know  that  in  the 
company  for  which  we  were  enlisting,  there  have  hitherto  always  been 
many  men  not  more  than  five  feet  eight  ?  Now,  good  colonel,  were  we 
not  bound,  in  interpreting  your  instructions,  to  avail  ourselves  of  our 
previous  knowledge  of  the  practice  in  the  company?  I  can  assure  you 
also,  colonel,  that  we  have  the  sanction  of  the  Independent  churches  for 
this  way  of  reasoning,  though  they  profess  the  strictest  adherence  to  the 
Scriptures.  Mr.  Ewing  and  Dr.  Wardlaw  explain  their  Lord's  com- 
mission to  baptize,  in  the  very  way  in  which  we  have  explained  our 
commission  to  enlist.  If  they  treat  the  commission  of  the  Lord  of 
heaven  in  that  way,  it  surely  cannot  be  blameable  in  us  to  treat  your 
commission  in  a  similar  manner.  We  reasoned  from  the  former  practice, 
and  thought  from  this,  thatTwe  were  not  bound  to  what  was  specified  in 
our  orders."  "You  thought,  Sir!"  says  the  colonel,  " you  reasoned  ! 
Who  authorised  you  to  reason  on  the  subject?  Your  business,  Sir,  was 
to  obey.  Your  orders  were  so  plain  that  they  could  not  be  mistaken. 
You  had  no  right  to  reason,  whether  you  would  obey  them  or  neglect 
them.  Your  conduct  is  unsoldierly,  and  would  subvert  all  discipline. 
Drop  your  swords,  take  up  your  muskets,  and  return  to  the  ranks." 
And  does  Dr.  Wardlaw  expect  a  "  well  done,  good  and  faithful  servant," 
for  conduct  that  would  degrade  a  recruiting  sergeant?  Cease,  Dr. 
Wardlaw,  to  pervert  the  word  of  the  Lord :  cease  to  teach  his  children 
how  to  evade  his  injunctions :  cease  to  justify  as  an  institution  of  Christ, 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  173 

the  inventions  of  men :  cease  to  force  a  commission  enjoining  the  bap- 
tism of  believers,  to  sanction  the  baptism  of  infants :  cease  to  loose  the 
subjects  of  Jesus  from  the  first  law  of  his  kingdom. 

With  reference  to  Mark  xvi.  16,  Mr.  Evving  says,  "  From  this  text 
some  infer,  that  a  person  must  actually  believe,  else  he  cannot  be  baptized. 
With  as  much  reason  they  might  infer,  that  a  person  must  actually 
believe,  else  he  cannot  be  saved."  Certainly ;  if  there  were  no  way  of 
saving  children  but  by  the  Gospel,  this  conclusion  would  be  inevitable. 
The  Gospel  saves  none  but  by  faith.  But  the  Gospel  has  nothing  to  do 
with  infants,  nor  have  Gospel  ordinances  any  respect  to  them.  The 
Gospel  has  to  do  with  those  who  hear  it.  It  is  good  news ;  but  to  infants 
it  is  not  news  at  all.  They  know  nothing  of  it.  The  salvation  of  the 
Gospel  is  as  much  confined  to  believers,  as  the  baptism  of  the  Gospel  is. 
None  can  ever  be  saved  by  the  Gospel  who  do  not  believe  it.  Conse- 
quently, by  the  Gospel  no  infant  can  be  saved.  It  is  expressly,  with 
respect  to  such  as  hear  it,  that  the  Gospel  is  here  said  to  be  salvation  by 
faith,  and  condemnation  by  unbelief.  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and 
preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  Here  the 
salvation  and  the  condemnation  respect  those  to  whom  the  Gospel  comes. 
Infants  are  saved  by  the  death  of  Christ,  but  not  by  the  Gospel — not  by 
faith.  Adults  are  saved  by  faith,  not  from  the  virtue  of  faith,  but  it  is 
of  faith  that  it  might  be  by  grace.  Infants  who  enter  heaven  must  be 
regenerated,  but  not  by  the  Gospel.  Infants  must  be  sanctified  for  hea- 
ven, but  not  through  the  truth  as  revealed  to  man.  We  know  nothing 
of  the  means  by  which  God  receives  infants ;  nor  have  we  any  business 
with  it.  The  salvation  that  the  Gospel  proclaims  to  the  world,  is  a 
salvation  through  the  belief  of  the  truth,  and  none  have  this  salvation 
without  faith.  The  nations  who  have  not  heard  the  Gospel,  cannot  be 
saved  by  the  Gospel,  because  the  Gospel  is  salvation  only  through  faith 
in  it.  They  are  not  condemned  by  the  Gospel ;  for  it  is  condemnation 
only  to  those  who  do  not  believe  it.  To  them  it  is  neither  a  benefit  nor 
an  injury.  They  will  be  judged,  as  we  are  assured  in  the  Scriptures, 
according  to  the  law  written  on  the  heart.  I  admit,  then,  that  the  salva- 
tion of  the  apostolic  commission,  is  as  much  confined  to  believers,  as  the 
baptism  of  that  commission  is  confined  to  such.  The  man  who  would 
preach  infant  salvation  out  of  the  apostolic  commission,  or  attempt  to 
prove  that  the  commission  may  be  explained  so  as  to  include  it,  I  should 
gainsay,  on  the  same  ground  on  which  I  resist  the  attempts  to  include 
in  it  infant  baptism.  None  can  be  saved  by  the  Gospel,  but  such  as 
believe  the  Gospel ;  none  can  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  the  Gospel, 
but  such  as  believe  the  Gospel.     There  is  no  exception  to  either. 

But  that  believers  only  can  be  baptized  by  this  commission,  is  clear 
from  that  into  which  they  are  said  to  be  baptized  :  "  Baptizing  them  into 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  It  is 
into  the  faith  and  subjection  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  that 
men  are  to  be  baptized.  Surely  none  can  be  baptized  into  the  faith  and 
subjection  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  but  adults.  Infants  cannot 
believe,  nor  express  subjection.     About  the  glorious  doctrine  imported 


174  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

in  these  words,  we  have  no  dispute.  On  this  all  important  point,  we 
have  one  mind.  And  I  joyfully  profess  that  I  embrace  as  brethren  in 
Christ  all  who  are  united  with  me  in  that  doctrine,  and  the  truths  im- 
ported in  it.  While,  therefore,  I  use  the  surgical  knife  with  an  unspar- 
ing hand,  to  remove  the  morbid  parts  of  the  reasoning  of  my  brethren, 
I  love  them  for  their  love  to  that  truth ;  and  I  cut  only  to  heal.  My 
brethren  love  the  thing  imported  by  baptism,  while  I  lament  that  they 
spend  so  much  zeal  in  endeavouring  to  establish  a  baptism  not  instituted 
by  Christ.  In  doing  so,  they  injure  thousands  and  thousands  of  their 
brethren,  and  cannot  but  injure  themselves.  It  is  impossible  to  fight 
against  God  on  any  point,  without  being  wounded.  I  acknowledge  I  was 
long  in  the  same  transgression.  Many  infants  have  I  sprinkled ;  but  if 
I  know  my  own  heart,  I  would  not  now  pour  water  into  a  child's  face  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  the 
globe  on  which  I  stand.  Ah,  my  brethren !  it  is  an  awful  thing  to  do 
in  the  Lord's  name,  that  which  the  Lord  has  not  appointed.  Who  has 
required  this  at  your  hands?  You  may  explain,  and  reason,  and  sup- 
pose, but,  till  the  trumpet  sounds,  you  will  never  force  this  commission 
to  include  your  baptism  of  infants.  You  may  conjure  up  difficulties  to 
perplex  the  weak ;  your  ingenuity  may  invent  subterfuges  that  may 
cover  error ;  but  you  will  never  find  an  inch  of  solid  ground  on  which 
to  rest  the  sole  of  your  foot.  Your  work  will  never  be  done.  You  are 
rolling  the  stone  of  Sisyphus,  and  the  farther  you  push  it  up  hill,  with 
the  greater  force  will  it  rebound  on  your  own  heads.  The  labours  of 
Hercules  are  but  an  amusement  compared  with  your  task.  Ingenuity 
may  put  a  false  system  plausibly  together ;  but  no  ingenuity  can  give 
it  the  solidity  and  life  of  the  truth.  It  may  satisfy  as  long  as  persons  do 
not  inquire  deeply  and  earnestly  into  the  question.  But  it  will  not 
satisfy  when  the  mind  begins  to  say,  "  Lord,  what  wouldst  thou  have 
me  to  do?" 

That  believers  only  are  included  in  the  baptism  of  this  commission,  is 
clear  also  from  the  command  to  teach  the  baptized  :  "  Teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you."  Here  the  per- 
sons baptized  are  supposed  to  be  capable  of  being  taught  the  other 
ordinances  enjoined  by  Christ.     Children  then  cannot  be  included. 

Never  was  a  commission  more  definite.  Never  was  a  commission 
violated  with  less  excuse  of  ambiguity.  Yet  the  arrogance  of  human 
wisdom  has  totally  reversed  the  ordinance  here  enjoined.  It  has  ordered 
infants  to  be  baptized,  who,  by  the  very  terms  of  this  commission,  are 
excluded  from  this  baptism  :  and  it  leaves  unbaptized,  believers  whom 
only  Jesus  hath  commanded  to  be  baptized.  Is  not  this  the  very  spirit 
of  Antichrist?  Christians,  how  long  will  ye  suffer  yourselves  to  be 
deluded  by  the  inventions  of  the  mother  of  harlots?  How  long  will  you 
observe  the  inventions  of  men  as  the  institutions  of  God?  Will  the 
antichristian  leaven  never  be  purged  out  of  the  churches  of  Christ? 
Why  will  ye  deprive  yourselves  of  the  edification  and  comfort  to  be 
derived  from  the  true  ordinances  of  your  Lord  ?  Why  will  ye  continue 
to  seek  evasions  with  respect  to  a  law  that  is  designed  to  enrich  you? 
Why  tarry  ye,  my  brethren?    arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away 


THE    SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM.  175 

your  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord.  As  long  as  ye  remain  igno- 
rant of  this  ordinance,  much  of  the  treasures  of  Divine  knowledge  are 
locked  up  from  you. 

The  baptism  of  John  was  in  two  points  essentially  different  from  the 
baptism  of  the  apostolic  commission ;  but  in  mode  and  subjects  it  was 
perfectly  coincident.  John  did  not  baptize  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost :  he  did  not  baptize  into  the  faith 
of  Christ  as  come,  but  as  about  to  be  made  manifest.  As  far,  however, 
as  concerns  our  subject,  the  two  baptisms  correspond.  Let  us  then 
examine  the  evidence  to  be  derived  from  the  baptism  of  John.  "  John 
did  baptize  in  the  wilderness,  and  preach  the  baptism  of  repentance  for 
the  remission  of  sins.  And  there  went  out  unto  him  all  the  land  of 
Judea,  and  they  of  Jerusalem,  and  were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the  river 
of  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins,"  Mark  i.  4.  Here  we  see  John's  baptism 
was  a  baptism  of  repentance,  in  order  to  remission  of  sins.  It  could  not, 
then,  include  infants  who  cannot  repent,  and  whose  sins,  when  they  die 
in  infancy,  are  not  remitted  on  repentance,  arising  from  the  belief  of  the 
truth,  but  through  the  blood  of  Christ,  applied  in  a  way  of  which  we  can 
learn  nothing  from  the  Scriptures,  and  with  which  we  have  no  concern. 
Some,  indeed,  reply,  that  it  is  not  impossible  for  God  to  give  faith  to  in- 
fants. Dr.  D wight  himself  says,  that  John  the  Baptist  had  faith  from 
the  womb.  If  John  the  Baptist  was  a  man  when  he  was  a  child,  Dr. 
Dwight  in  this  is  a  child  when  he  is  a  man.  It  is  astonishing  how  silly 
wise  men  will  become,  when  they  attempt  to  force  the  word  of  God.  It 
must  be  a  Divine  judgment,  that  when  his  servants  use  his  word  as  an 
instrument  to  lead  his  people  astray,  the  Lord  gives  them  up  to  speak 
foolishly,  so  as  to  put  them  to  shame.  Infants  lfave  faith !  Where  dees 
their  faith  go,  when  they  begin  to  speak?  Can  they  have  faith  without 
knowledge?  And  did  any  one  ever  hear  of  the  knowledge  of  infants? 
But  this  observation  is  founded  on  deep  ignorance.  It  proceeds  on  the 
supposition,  that  as  faith  is  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  adults,  it  is 
necessary  in  infants  also.  The  necessity  of  faith  to  salvation,  they  must 
consider  as  a  necessity  of  nature,  and  not  a  necessity  of  Divine  appoint- 
ment. They  suppose  that  God  himself  cannot  save  infants,  without  giv- 
ing them  that  faith  that  he  requires  of  all  who  hear  the  Gospel.  Now, 
there  is  no  such  necessity.  Faith  is  necessary  to  those  who  hear  the  Gos- 
pel, because  God  has  absolutely  required  it.  But  it  is  not  at  all  necessary 
to  infants,  because  he  hath  not  required  it  in  infants.  The  atonement 
through  the  blood  of  Christ  is  the  same  to  infants  as  to  believers ;  but  it 
is  not  applied  to  them  in  the  same  way.  John  the  Baptist  is  not  said 
to  have  had  faith  when  an  infant.  He  is  said  indeed  to  be  sanctified 
from  the  womb,  but  this  was  not  a  sanctification  through  belief  of  the 
truth.  Adults  are  sanctified  by  faith,  but  infants  are  not  sanctified  by 
faith.  If  infants  believe,  we  should  hear  them,  as  soon  as  they  begin 
to  speak,  talking  of  the  things  of  God,  without  any  teaching  from  the 
parents,  or  the  Scriptures.  Was  ever  any  such  thing  heard  ?  Can  there 
be  any  surer  evidence,  on  the  very  face  of  the  question,  that  the  Scrip- 
tures know  nothing  of  infant  baptism,  than  that  the  wisest  of  its  defend- 
ers should  utter  absurdities  so  monstrous  in  order  to  prove  it?     But  were 


176  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

we  even  to  grant  that  John  the  Baptist  had  this  infant  faith,  does  it  fol- 
low that  all  the  children  of  believers  have  it  also?  Is  it  not  mentioned 
as  a  thing  extraordinary,  that  John  was  sanctified  from  the  womb?  Let 
them  baptize  none  in  infancy,  but  such  as  they  have  reason  to  believe 
are  sanctified  from  the  womb.  I  will  go  farther.  Had  God  made  faith 
necessary  to  the  salvation  of  infants,  and  had  he  appointed  to  give  faith 
to  dying  infants,  this  would  not  imply  that  he  gives  faith  to  those  who 
live.  Were  this  the  case,  they  would  all  be  believers  before  they  hear 
the  Gospel.  I  am  sure  Christian  parents  cannot  receive  such  doctrine. 
They  know  that  their  children  are  ignorant  of  God,  till,  by  the  hearing 
of  the  Gospel,  he  shines  into  their  heart,  to  give  them  the  light  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ.  Can  any 
absurdity  exceed  that  of  the  opinion  that  infants  are  baptized  on  the 
supposition  that  they  have  faith  ?  If  it  can  be  fairly  made  out  that  the 
circumstance  of  being  born  of  Christian  parents  is  evidence  that  infants 
have  faith  from  the  womb,  I  have  no  objection  to  baptize  them.  To 
defend  infant  baptism  on  this  ground,  is  virtually  to  give  it  up.  It  ac- 
knowledges the  necessity  of  faith  in  order  to  baptism  ;  but  outrages 
common  sense,  in  order  to  find  it  in  infants,  when  they  are  born.  Chris- 
tians, is  the  man  worthy  of  a  hearing,  who  tells  you  that  infants  have 
faith  as  soon  as  they  come  into  this  world ;  yea,  and  before  they  come 
into  the  world?  Can  such  nonsense  be  worthy  of  refutation  ?  Were  it 
not  that  the  names  under  which  such  absurdities  are  ushered  into  the 
world,  have  a  weight  with  the  public,  these  arguments  would  be  un- 
worthy even  of  being  mentioned. 

The  baptism  of  John  was  not  only  a  baptism  on  repentance  for  remis- 
sion of  sins,  it  was  also  a  baptism  in  which  sins  were  confessed.  He  bap- 
tized them  in  the  river  of  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins.  Now  infant  faith 
will  not  do  without  infant  confession.  Can  infants  confess  their  sins  ?  If 
not,  they  were  not  baptized  by  John.  It  was  the  perception  of  this  diffi- 
culty that  first  appointed  sponsors,  who  believe,  and  repent,  and  confess  for 
the  infant.    Unhappily  our  Independent  brethren  have  not  this  resource. 

The  points  in  which  John's  baptism  differed  from  that  of  Christ,  may 
be  seen,  Acts  xix.  1-5  :  "And  it  came  to  pass,  that,  while  Apollos  was  at 
Corinth,  Paul  having  passed  through  the  upper  coasts,  came  to  Ephesus ; 
and  finding  certain  disciples,  he  said  unto  them,  Have  ye  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  since  ye  believed?  And  they  said  unto  him,  We  have  not 
so  much  as  heard  whether  there  be  any  Holy  Ghost.  And  he  said  unto 
them,  Unto  what  then  were  ye  baptized?  And  they  said,  Unto  John's 
baptism.  Then  said  Paul,  John  verily  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance, saying  unto  the  people,  that  they  should  believe  on  him  which 
should  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus.  When  they  heard  this, 
they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  Here  we  see  that 
John  did  not  baptize  into  the  name  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  they  did  not 
know  that  this  distinction  in  the  Godhead  exists.  Besides,  John  bap- 
tized into  the  faith  of  the  Messiah  about  to  be  manifested :  Christ's  bap- 
tism must  confess  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ.  This  is  an  essential  differ- 
ence. Accordingly,  "  when  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."    John's  baptism  did  not  serve  for  Christ's 


THE    SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM.  177 

baptism.  Human  wisdom  will  correct  the  Scriptures  here/and  because 
it  cannot  see  why  John's  baptism  will  not  serve  for  Christ's,  the  words 
have  been  tortured  to  make  them  say,  that  they  were  baptized  into 
Christ  by  being  baptized  by  John.  No  ground,  however,  can  be  found 
in  the  passage  for  this  conceit.  No  force  can  extract  it  from  the  words. 
It  is  man's  scripture — not  God's. 

John's  baptism,  then,  did  not  serve  for  Christ's.  If  so,  infant  baptism, 
even  if  such  a  thing  had  been  instituted  by  Christ,  would  not  serve  for 
the  baptism  in  Christ's  commission,  which  is  believer  baptism.  Paul 
baptized  the  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist,  because  they  had  not  been 
baptized  into  the  faith  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ;  and  because 
they  had  been  baptized  only  in  the  faith  of  the  Messiah  to  come.  Surely 
then,  they  who  are  baptized  in  infancy  upon  any  pretence  whatever, 
must  be  baptized  when  they  come  to  the  faith  of  the  Gospel. 

But  if  John's  baptism  implied  repentance  and  confession  of  sin,  how 
could  Jesus  submit  to  it?  This  apparent  inconsistency  struck  John 
himself  so  forcibly,  that  he  even  presumed  to  forbid  him.  "  But  John 
forbade  him,  saying,  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  thee ;  and  comest 
thou  to  me?"  Jesus  did  not  deny  this;  personally  he  had  no  sins  to 
confess ;  yet  still  there  was  a  propriety  in  his  submitting  to  the  baptism 
of  repentance.  "  And  Jesus  answering,  said  unto  him,  Suffer  it  to  be  so 
now  :  for  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fufil  all  righteousness."  It  was  neces- 
sary for  Jesus  to  observe  all  the  Divine  institutions  incumbent  on  his 
people.  But  if  this  was  necessary,  there  must  be  a  propriety  in  the 
thing  itself.  It  must  not  be  to  Christ  an  unmeaning  ceremony.  If  he 
submits  to  the  baptism  of  repentance,  there  must  be  a  point  of  view  in 
which  it  suits  him.  And  what  is  that  point  of  view?  Evidently  that, 
though  he  is  himself  holy,  harmless,  and  undefined ;  yet,  as  one  with  us, 
he  is  defiled.  Just  as,  by  our  oneness  with  him,  we  can  say,  "  who 
shall  lay  anything  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect?"  so  by  his  being  one 
with  us,  he  can  confess  himself  a  sinner.  The  oneness  of  Christ  and  his 
people,  then,  is  not  a  figurative  way  of  speaking ;  it  is  a  solid  and  con- 
soling truth.  By  it  we  die  in  Christ's  death,  and  are  acquitted  as  inno- 
cent; by  it  Christ  is  made  sin  for  us,  who,  in  his  own  person,  knew  no 
sin.  Christ's  baptism,  then,  is  no  exception  from  what  is  implied  in 
John's  baptism.  It  has  the  same  meaning,  as  well  as  the  same  figure  to 
him  as  to  us.  In  Christ's  being  buried  in  the  waters  of  Jordan,  we  have 
a  figure  of  the  way  in  which  he  was  acquitted  from  the  debt  he  took  on 
him.  It  represented  his  death,  burial,  and  resurrection.  If  we  are 
guilty  by  being  one  with  Adam,  Christ  was  in  like  manner  guilty  by 
becoming  one  with  us.  The  object  of  John's  baptism  was  exhibited  in 
the  immersion  of  Jesus. 

It  is  odd,  however,  in  what  a  different  light  the  same  evidence  strikes 
different  people.  In  the  account  of  the  baptism  of  John,  I  can  see 
nothing  but  the  immersing  of  persons  professing  repentance :  Mr.  Ewing 
sees  with  equal  clearness,  that  the  business  was  done  by  pouring  water 
on  the  turned-up  face ;  and  that  infants  were  popped  as  well  as  their 
parents.  Really  it  is  strange,  if  the  words  of  the  Spirit  are  like  an  oracle 
of  Delphi,  that  can  be  interpreted  in  two  opposite  senses. 

23 


178  THE    SUBJECTS    OF   BAPTISM. 

Upon  what  ground  can  Mr.  Ewing  conclude,  from  this  account,  that 
John  baptized  infants?  Here  is  the  proof,  and  surely  it  is  demon- 
stration itself!  "  Consider,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  the  very  general  and 
comprehensive  terms  in  which  the  people  are  said  to  have  come  to  be 
baptized,  Matt.  iii.  5,  6  :  'Then  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem,  and  all 
Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about.  Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of  him 
in  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins.'  This  account,"  says  he,  "  most  natu- 
rally admits  the  supposition,  that  the  inhabitants  of  those  places,  came 
usually  at  least,  with  their  families."  The  account  does  not  import  even 
this.  If  the  whole  question  depended  on  the  presence  of  a  child,  the 
history  could  not  prove  it.  But  what  if  it  could  be  proved  that  children 
accompanied  their  parents ?  Would  this  prove  their  baptism?  "The 
general  and  comprehensive  terms."  How  are  the  terms  general  and  com- 
prehensive? Are  they  so  general  and  comprehensive  as  to  include  infants? 
They  are  not  so,  Mr.  Ewing.  However  numerous  they  were,  they  all 
confessed  their  sins.  "  The  disciples,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  there  went  out 
to  meet  John,  as  the  disciples  at  Tyre  did  to  take  farewell  of  Paul." 
Who  told  you  so,  Mr.  Ewing?  This  is  apocryphal.  Even  this  you  can- 
not learn  from  the  history.  And  if  it  were  expressly  stated,  it  would 
not  serve  you.  How  easily  is  Mr.  Ewing  satisfied  with  proof,  when  it  is 
on  a  certain  side  of  the  question  !  The  whole  Greek  language  could  not 
produce  a  phrase  that  his  criticism  would  admit  as  conclusive  evidence 
of  immersion.  But  that  infants  were  present  with  their  parents  at  John's 
baptism,  and  baptized  along  with  them,  he  admits  without  evidence,  with 
the  docility  of  a  child.  If  his  obstinacy  is  invincible  on  some  points, 
he  makes  ample  amends  by  his  pliancy  in  others.  No  man  was  ever 
more  easily  satisfied  with  proof  of  his  own  opinions. 

"The  same  latitude  of  language,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "is  always  used 
respecting  the  administration  of  baptism  by  the  disciples  of  Christ, 
John  iii.  25,  26 :  '  There  arose  a  question  between  some  of  John's  dis- 
ciples and  the  Jews  about  purifying.  And  they  came  unto  John,  and 
said  unto  him,  Rabbi,  he  that  was  with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  to  whom 
thou  barest  witness,  behold,  the  same  baptizetb,  and  all  come  to  him.' 
John  iv.  1 — 3 :  '  When  therefore  the  Lord  knew  how  the  Pharisees  had 
heard  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John,  (though 
Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples,)  he  left  Judea,  and  departed 
again  into  Gallilee.' "  Now,  reader,  is  there  anything  here  about  the 
subject  of  infant  baptism?  Is  it  not  mere  dreaming,  to  quote  these 
passages  in  proof  that  Jesus  baptized  infants?  Yet,  in  Mr.  Ewing's 
estimation,  this  is  proof.  "  The  two  foregoing  passages,"  says  he,  "  evi- 
dently imply  that  baptism  was  dispensed  in  the  same  extensive  manner, 
by  the  disciples  of  Christ,  as  it  was  by  John  the  Baptist."  There  is  no 
doubt  but  John's  baptism  and  Christ's  were  equally  extensive.  But  is 
this  proof  that  either  of  them  extended  to  infants  ?  The  passages  import, 
that  a  great  multitude  came  for  baptism  both  to  John  and  to  Christ ; 
but  that  infants  were  brought  for  baptism,  is  not  hinted.  On  the  con- 
trary, those  baptized  by  John,  are  baptized  on  a  confession  of  sin;  and 
it  is  said  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John.  The 
disciples  of  Jesus,  then,  baptized  while  he  was  with  them,  disciples  only. 

But  not  only  does  Mr.  Ewing  find  infants  baptized  by  John ;  he  also 


THE  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM.  179 

makes  provision  for  them  in  the  apostolical  commission  itself.  New, 
really,  if  he  can  do  this,  I  shall  not  despair  of  proof  for  transubstantiation. 
Well,  let  us  hear  him.  "  We  have  to  add,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  that 
there  is  ample  room  for  supposing  family  baptism  to  be  included  in  the 
comprehensive  terms  of  our  Saviour's  final  commission,  Matt,  xxviii.  18." 
Room,  ay,  "  ample  room."  I  have  measured  it,  and  I  maintain,  that, 
if  there  is  truth  in  axioms,  there  is  not  room  for  infants  in  this  com- 
mission ?  How  is  the  language  in  this  commission  comprehensive  ? 
Does  Mr.  Ewing  find  a  place  for  the  infants  in  the  all  nations  ?  I 
cannot  persuade  myself  that  this  is  the  refuge  which  he  has  provided 
for  them.  Does  he  deny  that  it  is  disciples  that  the  commission 
enjoins  to  be  baptized?  Does  he  make  infants  disciples?  Does  he 
deny  that  the  commission,  as  recorded  by  Mark,  makes  the  disciples 
in  Matthew  xxviii.  believers  1  Why  did  not  Mr.  Ewing  show  how 
this  commission  comprehends  infants?  Why  did  he  pass  over  this 
with  a  mere  assertion?  If  he  could  do  this,  he  certainly  would  not 
have  concealed  the  process  by  which  he  has  come  to  the  conclusion. 
That  commission  commands  believers  to  be  baptized ;  and  except  both 
sides  of  a  contradiction  may  be  true,  it  can  never  include  unbelievers. 
"  When  we  consider,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  how  many  things  there  are 
which  Jesus  himself  did,  which  are  not  written  in  the  Gospel  histories, 
(John  xx.  30,  and  xxi.  25,)  we  cannot  wonder  at  the  brevity  of  the 
accounts  of  the  subordinate  practice  of  the  disciples  in  dispensing  bap- 
tism to  believers  and  their  houses."  But  does  Mr.  Ewing  suppose  that 
we  are  so  unreasonable,  as  to  look  for  long  histories  of  all  instances  of 
infant  baptism,  on  the  supposition  that  it  was  practised?  We  look  for 
no  such  thing.  Were  they  included  in  the  commission,  we  should  not 
look  for  a  single  example  in  practice.  And  if  there  was  an  instance  of 
the  baptism  of  but  one  newly-born  child,  we  should  esteem  it  as  valid  as 
a  million ;  valid,  however,  not  to  prove  that  infants  are  included  in  the 
commission, — for  nothing  could  prove  this, — but  valid  to  prove  another 
baptism,  not  interfering  with  the  baptism  of  believers.  Were  a  thousand 
baptisms  found  in  the  New  Testament,  they  could  not  all  serve  for  the 
baptism  of  the  commission  ;  nor  relieve  the  believer  from  his  obligation 
of  being  baptized  on  the  belief  of  the  truth.  John's  baptism,  we  have 
seen,  could  not  serve  for  the  baptism  of  the  apostolical  commission. 

Though,  therefore,  no  evidence  could  convince  me  that  it  is  possible 
to  reduce  infant  baptism  to  the  commission,  I  am  willing  to  examine  the 
practice  of  the  apostles,  to  find  whether  they  used  another  baptism  with 
respect  to  the  infants  of  believers.  I  have  no  hope  that  we  shall  find 
any  such  thing ;  for  the  apostle  tells  us  that  there  is  but  one  baptism,  as 
well  as  one  faith.  Let  us  try,  then,  whether  the  apostle  has  told  the 
truth  in  this  matter ;  or  whether  his  practice  gave  the  lie  to  his  assertion. 

How  did  the  apostle  Peter  preach  baptism  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  ? 
Did  he  preach  infant  baptism  ?  No,  he  preached  a  baptism  connected 
with  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins.  Let  us  hear  the  account  given 
of  his  doctrine  on  this  subject  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  Acts  ii.  38;  "Then 
Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you,  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the 


180  THE  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 

gift  of  the  HoJy  Ghost."  Here  baptism  is  connected  with  repentance 
and  remission  of  sins.  This  baptism,  then,  cannot  extend  to  infants. 
If  infants  have  a  baptism,  it  must  be  essentially  different  from  this, — 
more  different  than  John's  baptism  is  from  Christ's.  Well,  a  number  of 
them  did  repent,  and  were  baptized.  But  were  any  infants  baptized 
with  them  ?  Not  a  word  of  this.  "  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his 
word  were  baptized."  This  does  not  express  infants,  nor  can  it  include 
them.  No  explanation  could  make  this  account  extend  to  infants.  It 
may  be  said,  that  it  is  possible  that  infants  were  baptized  at  the  same 
time.  This  is  possible,  just  in  the  same  way  that  it  is  possible  that 
the  apostles  administered  honey  and  milk  to  the  baptized  persons.  It  is 
not  in  evidence,  either  expressly,  or  by  implication.  Infants  are  ex- 
cluded from  the  number  who  are  said  to  be  baptized ;  because  they 
only  are  said  to  have  been  baptized,  who  received  the  word  gladly. 

The  next  account  of  baptism  occurs  in  Acts  viii.  12,  "But  when  they 
believed  Philip  preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and 
women."  Here,  also,  only  they  who  believed  are  said  to  have  been 
baptized.     But  it  is  remarkable,  that  the  account  specifies  women. 

Had  the  account  said  nothing  of  women,  yet  it  would  have  included 
them  as  believers ;  and  the  commission  would  have  extended  to  them. 
But  to  make  the  thing  palpably  clear,  women  are  not  only  included,  but 
expressly  included.  Now,  is  it  not  remarkable  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
should  be  so  precise  as  to  women,  yet  not  say  a  word  of  infants  ?  This 
is  unaccountable,  if  they  were  baptized.  How  many  volumes  of  con- 
troversy would  the  addition  of  a  word  have  prevented !  How  liberal 
was  the  Spirit  of  Inspiration  as  to  the  information  about  the  baptism  of 
women !  But  on  the  supposition  that  infants  were  baptized,  how  parsi- 
monious with  respect  to  the  baptism  of  infants  ! 

The  baptism  of  Simon  proceeded  on  the  supposition  of  his  faith ;  and 
though  he  was  not  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  his  mind,  he  was  baptized  on 
the  same  ground  with  all  others.  "  Then  Simon  himself  believed  also  : 
and  when  he  was  baptized,"  &c.  The  baptism  of  the  eunuch  was  on 
the  same  principle.  These  examples  illustrate  the  commission,  as 
requiring  baptism  on  the  belief  of  the  truth.  True,  indeed,  it  is 
possible  that  faith  might  be  required  in  adults  and  not  in  infants.  But 
the  former  is  the  only  baptism  included  in  the  commission,  and  the  only 
baptism  that  these  examples  illustrate. 

The  baptism  of  Paul,  Acts  xxii.  16,  shows  that  baptism  is  a  figure 
applicable  only  to  those  who  are  washed  from  their  sins.  "  Be  baptized, 
and  wash  away  thy  sins."  Paul's  sins  were  already  washed  away,  by 
faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ.  Yet  he  is  commanded  here  to  wash  them 
away  in  baptism.  This  shows  that  baptism  is  a  figure  of  washing  away 
sins,  with  respect  to  those  who  are  already  washed.  To  infants,  it  can 
be  no  such  figure.  Even  if  all  the  infants  of  all  believers,  were 
assuredly  to  be  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  yet  this  is  not 
done  in  infancy,  Infant  baptism,  then,  and  believer  baptism,  are  not  the 
same  ordinance.  To  the  former,  it  would  be  a  sign  that  their  sins  would 
hereafter  be  washed  away;  to  the  latter,  that  their  sins  were  already,  by 


THE     SUBJECTS     OF     BAPTISM.  181 

faith,  washed  away.  But  who  will  say  that  there  is  any  evidence  that  all 
the  children  of  all  believers  will  ever  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth? 
But  surely  the  households  will  settle  the  business.  Here  is  a  word 
comprehensive  enough  for  including  infants.  This  battery,  then,  we 
cannot  take.  Well,  I  once  talked  of  the  households  myself,  and  shel- 
tered myself  here  as  long  as  I  could  fire  a  gun.  But  my  own  conscience 
obliged  me  to  give  up  the  battery  at  last.  I  maintain  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  defend  the  cause  of  infant  baptism  by  this  battery.  It  cannot 
point  one  gun  on  the  enemy.  Mr.  Ewing  and  Dr.  Wardlaw  have  made 
the  best  of  it,  yet  their  fire  is  quite  harmless.  The  noise  of  their  guns 
may  startle  the  inexperienced  soldier ;  but  if  he  can  command  as  much 
nerve  as  will  enable  him  to  examine  the  direction  of  their  fire,  he  will 
soon  get  under  it.     I  shall  begin  with  Dr.  Wardlaw. 

"  In  the  first  place,  then,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  there  is  one  point  of 
fact  undeniably  clear,  namely,  that  the  apostles  baptized  households  or 
families."  Granted ;  but  it  is  as  clear  that  these  were  believing  house- 
holds. This  fact  signifies  nothing.  A  household  may  include  infants, 
and  it  may  not  include  them.  It  cannot,  then,  give  evidence  on  this 
point.  In  such  a  case,  the  extent  of  the  baptism  must  be  determined 
by  the  commission.  Nay,  if  I  were  assured  that  there  were  infants  in 
every  one  of  the  households,  I  should  with  equal  confidence  deny  that 
they  were  baptized.  According  to  the  commission,  they  could  not  be 
baptized ;  and  such  phraseology  always  admits  exceptions,  with  respect 
to  those  known  to  be  excluded  from  the  thing  spoken  of.  When  I  say 
that  such  a  man  and  his  family  dined  with  me,  I  am  known  not  to  in- 
clude infants.  In  like  manner,  as  the  baptism  of  the  commission  cannot 
possibly  extend  to  infants,  even  if  they  had  been  present  in  the  families, 
they  are  not  included  among  the  baptized.  I  will  go  a  step  farther.  I 
will  suppose,  for  sake  of  argument,  that  the  apostles  did  baptize  infants; 
even  then,  I  will  deny  that  the  infants  were  baptized  according  to  the 
commission.  It  must  have  been  a  different  baptism,  and  would  not  pre- 
vent the  same  infants  from  being  baptized  with  believer  baptism,  as  soon 
as  they  should  believe.  If  one  instance  of  infant  baptism  is  proved,  I 
zvill  baptize  infants;  but  a  million  of  such  examples  ivould  not  set  aside 
believer  baptism. 

"  It  should  be  noticed  too,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  that  a  man's  house 
most  properly  means  his  children,  his  offspring,  his  descendants, — and  is 
generally  used  to  denote  these  even  exclusively."  This  word  as  properly, 
both  from  its  origin  and  use,  includes  all  domestics  as  children.  It 
properly  signifies  all  the  residents  in  a  house.  It  is  capable,  indeed,  of 
being  limited  to  descendants,  when  the  connexion  or  known  circum- 
stances require  it.  It  is,  therefore,  very  often  used  with  respect  to  them 
exclusively.  It  is  also  often  used  to  denote,  not  only  descendants,  but 
ancestors  and  collateral  relations.  But  in  all  these  instances,  it  does  not 
mean  residents  at  all.  The  passages  to  which  Dr.  Wardlaw  refers, 
respect  descendants  without  respect  to  abode,  1  Kings  xiv.  10,  &,c. 
That  it  also  with  equal  propriety  includes  all  domestics,  is  clear  from  its 
use,  1  Kings  iv.  7;  v.  9,  &c.  It  must  then  be  the  connexion  or  circum- 
stances, that,  in  each  occurrence  of  the  word,  will  declare  its  extent.     I 


182  THE     SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM. 

will  allow  Dr.  Wardlaw  to  limit  it,  when,  from  the  connexion  or  circum- 
stances, he  proves  his  limitation.  He  must  likewise  allow  me  to  limit  it 
by  the  same  principles.  If  it  may,  by  the  connexion  of  circumstances, 
be  limited  to  descendants,  it  may  also  be  limited  to  adults,  by  the  ne- 
cessity arising  from  the  commission. 

Dr.  Wardlaw,  in  reasoning  on  these  households,  seems  to  forget  the 
difference  between  answering  an  objection  and  founding  an  argument. 
It  may  be  so,  is  enough  to  establish  anything  as  an  answer  to  an  objec- 
tion ;  it  may  not  be  so,  is  enough  to  overturn  it  as  an  argument.  When 
I  attempt  to  prove  believer  baptism,  I  must  produce  arguments  to  estab- 
lish it ;  and  my  opponent  will  succeed,  if  lie  can  show  that  these  argu- 
ments do  not  establish  my  point.  In  obviating  an  objection,  I  succeed, 
if  I  can  show  that  there  is  any  way  of  understanding  it  consistently  with 
my  doctrine.  Now,  with  respect  to  the  households,  we  merely  stand  on 
the  defensive.  It  is  our  business  to  reply  to  the  objection  grounded  on 
this  fact.  As  our  opponents  use  the  fact  as  an  argument,  they  must 
prove  that  their  doctrine  is  in  it.  It  is  enough  for  us  to  prove,  that  this 
fact  is  consistent  with  our  doctrine.  If  they  do  not  prove  that  infant 
baptism  is  necessarily  here,  the  passage  is  useless  to  them.  If  we  prove 
that  infant  baptism  is  not  necessarily  here,  we  have  all  we  wish.  Now, 
with  respect  to  house,  it  is  enough  for  our  purpose,  that  the  word  may 
include  all  domestics ;  but  it  is  not  enough  for  them  to  show  that  the 
word  may  signify  descendants  exclusively,  unless  they  show  a  necessary 
limitation,  from  the  connexion  or  circumstances. 

But  as  concerns  the  point  in  debate,  I  care  not  that  it  was  established 
that  house  applies  to  descendants  only.  I  will  still  limit  it  farther  by 
the  commission  to  adults.  Even  one  of  the  passages  referred  to  by  Dr. 
Wardlaw  himself,  might  have  taught  him  this.  "  One  that  ruleth  well 
his  own  house,"  1  Tim.  iii.  4.  The  nature  of  the  thing  asserted,  deter- 
mines it  to  apply  to  adults  only,  or  at  least  to  children  capable  of  govern- 
ment. Newly  born  infants  are  excluded.  I  require  no  more,  in  repel- 
ling the  objection  from  the  households.  As  the  ruling  of  a  house  cannot 
apply  to  infants  newly  born,  so  the  baptizing  of  a  house  cannot  refer  to 
any  in  the  house  but  such  as  come  under  the  commission.  Common  sense 
every  day  makes  the  necessary  limitations  in  such  indefinite  forms  of 
speech.  It  is  only  the  perverse  spirit  of  controversy,  that  finds  any  diffi- 
culty in  them. 

''Secondly,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  To  an  unprejudiced  reader  of  the 
New  Testament,  it  must,  I  think,  be  equally  clear,  that  the  baptism  of 
families  is  mentioned  in  a  way  that  indicates  its  being  no  extraordinary 
occurrence — but  a  thing  of  course."  The  baptism  of  households  was 
just  as  common  a  thing  as  the  faith  of  households,  and  nothing  more  so. 
That  the  baptism  of  a  household  was  a  matter  of  course  on  the  faith  of 
the  head  of  it,  without  the  faith  of  the  family,  there  is  not  the  slightest 
appearance.  We  are,  indeed,  informed  of  the  baptism  of  Lydia's  house, 
without  being  informed  of  their  faith.  But  that  they  had  faith,  the 
commission  leaves  no  doubt.  The  narrative  tells  us  that  the  house  of 
Crispus  believed,  but  it  does  not  tell  us  that  they  were  baptized,  Acts 
xviii.  8.     We  know,  however,  that  they  were  baptized,  because  the 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  183 

commission  enjoins  it.  In  like  manner,  when  we  are  told  that  Lydia'a 
house  were  baptized,  we  know  that  they  believed,  because  the  commis- 
sion warrants  the  baptism  of  none  but  believers. 

Instead  of  stating  that  the  baptism  of  Lydia's  house  was  a  thing  of 
course  on  her  faith,  without  theirs,  the  narrative  states,  as  a  piece  of 
important  information,  that  ought  to  be  a  lesson  to  every  age,  that 
baptism  is  so  closely  connected  with  the  belief  of  the  truth,  that  not  only 
Lydia  herself,  but  her  whole  family,  were  baptized,  before  she  invited 
the  apostle  to  partake  of  her  hospitality.  "  And  when  she  was  baptized, 
and  her  household,  she  besought  us,  saying,  If  ye  have  judged  me  to  be 
faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  house,  and  abide  there.  And  she 
constrained  us.  The  work  of  the  Lord  was  first  attended  to,  and  then 
attention  to  the  apostle. 

That  Lydia  had  any  children,  either  infants  or  adults,  is  not  in  evi- 
dence ;  and  therefore,  as  her  house  may  have  exclusively  consisted  of 
servants,  the  fact  can  never  serve  the  cause  of  infant  baptism.  Indeed, 
from  the  way  in  which  she  speaks  of  her  house,  and  from  her  being  a 
stranger  on  business  in  that  place,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  her 
family  consisted  solely  of  servants.  But  I  will  not  build  anything  on 
even  the  highest  probabilities.  I  will  lay  no  stone  in  my  building,  that 
time  will  corrode.  I  care  not  that  she  had  no  servants ;  her  baptized 
house  must  be  believers,  because  the  apostle  had  no  authority  to  bap- 
tize others.  I  care  not  that  she  had  infants  of  a  week  old ;  they  could 
not  be  included,  and  the  form  of  the  expression  does  not  require  that 
they  should  be  included.  When  it  is  said  that  a  certain  nobleman 
"  believed  himself,  and  his  whole  house,"  John  iv.  53,  does  it  imply  that 
they  were  no  infants  in  his  house  ?  Does  it  not  evidently  refer  to  those 
in  his  house  who  were  capable  of  believing,  and  to  all  such  in  his  house? 
When  it  is  said  that  Cornelius  "  feared  God,  with  all  his  house,"  is  it 
necessary  to  assert  that  there  could  have  been  no  infants  under  his 
roof?  Surely  not.  Why,  then,  is  it  supposed  that  the  baptism  of 
households  should  imply  the  baptism  of  infants,  who  by  the  commission 
are  excluded? 

"  Thirdly  "  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  Having  thus  the  unquestionable  fact 
of  the  baptism  of  families, — a  fact  according  with  the  ancient  practice 
of  the  circumcision  of  families,  and  supported  by  the  use  of  a  word  that 
properly  denotes  a  man's  children  or  offspring ;  we  are  warranted  to 
assume,  that  such  was  the  usual  practice." 

Here  Dr.  Wardlaw  shifts  the  ground  of  his  argument,  and  very 
conveniently  takes  for  granted  the  thing  to  be  proved.  What  is  the 
unquestionable  fact  in  his  past  observations  ?  The  baptism  of  families 
This  is  unquestionable,  because  it  is  expressly  said.  But  what  is  the 
thing  that  is  unquestionable?  Why,  that  the  word  household  is  so 
applied.  Is  it  unquestionable  that  the  household  were  baptized,  not  on 
account  of  their  own  faith,  but  on  account  of  the  faith  of  the  head  of  the 
family?  No;  this  is  not  unquestionable;  this  is  the  point  in  debate. 
But  this  is  what  Dr.  Wardlaw's  third  observation  takes  as  unquestion- 
able. If  it  is  not  unquestionable  in  this  sense,  it  is  nothing  to  his 
purpose.     It  does  not  accord  with  the  ancient  practice  of  the  circum- 


184  THE    SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM. 

cision  of  families.  If  the  household  believed  and  were  baptized,  it  does 
not  accord  with  the  circumcision  of  a  family  without  any  regard  to  faith. 
Dr.  Wardlaw  must  take  for  granted  his  own  sense  of  the  phrase ;  and 
when  this  is  granted  to  him,  he  will  very  easily  prove  his  point.  If  it  is 
granted  as  a  thing  unquestionable,  that  unbelieving  families  were  bap- 
tized, as  unbelieving  families  might  be  circumcised,  the  debate  is  at 
an  end.  But  Dr.  Wardlaw  must  prove  his  meaning  of  the  phrase,  before 
he  takes  it  for  granted. 

We  are  indeed  warranted  to  assume,  that  it  was  the  usual  practice  to 
baptize  every  family  that  believed.  But  from  the  baptism  of  a  thousand 
families,  we  are  not  warranted  to  conclude  the  baptism  of  every  family 
when  the  head  of  it  believed.  The  baptism  of  one  family  will  prove 
that  all  families  in  the  same  circumstances  ought  to  be  baptized.  This 
is  the  turning  point  of  the  argument.  If  we  read  that  a  man  and  his 
whole  family  were  hanged  for  murder,  this  will  prove  that  every  family 
that  joins  with  the  head  of  it  in  committing  murder,  ought  to  be  hanged. 
But  it  will  not  prove  that  every  family  ought  to  be  hanged  with  the 
father,  when  he  is  guilty  of  murder.  If  Lydia's  family  were  baptized 
on  account  of  her  faith,  having  none  of  their  own,  it  would  prove  what 
Dr.  Wardlaw  wants ;  but  if  this  is  not  in  evidence,  he  cannot  take  it 
for  granted.  Dr.  Wardlaw  must  prove  that  these  households  were 
baptized,  not  on  account  of  their  own  faith,  but  on  account  of  that  of 
the  head  of  the  family.  This  is  what  he  can  never  do.  All  the  appa- 
rent strength  of  his  reasoning  depends  on  the  assumption  of  false  prin- 
ciples. No  man  is  more  convincing  than  Dr.  Wardlaw,  if  it  is  lawful 
to  take  for  granted  the  thing  to  be  proved. 

Dr.  Wardlaw,  in  the  fourth  place,  examines  "  the  principles  on  which 
they  endeavour  to  set  aside  the  inference  from  the  examples  in  question." 
He  thinks  that  they  have  not  proved  that  Lydia  had  no  children.  And 
does  Dr.  Wardlaw  think  that  this  proof  lies  upon  us?  He  is  a  man  of 
war  from  his  youth;  and  has  he  yet  to  learn  the  laws  of  the  combat? 
The  proof  of  the  fact  that  Lydia  had  children,  lies  on  those  who  need 
the  assistance  of  the  infants.  I  maintain  that  it  is  not  in  evidence  that 
she  was  ever  married :  and  an  argument  cannot  be  founded  on  what 
is  not  in  evidence.  That  she  may  not  have  had  a  child  is  consistent 
with  all  that  is  said  here.  This  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose.  Before 
an  argument  can  be  deduced  from  this  fact,  it  must  be  proved  not  only 
that  she  had  children,  but  infants.  Nay,  more,  I  care  not  that  she  had 
infants ;  the  form  of  the  expression  does  not  require  that  they  were  bap- 
tized, and  the  commission  makes  it  certain  that  they  were  not  baptized. 

Dr.  Wardlaw  has  a  very  long,  and  certainly  a  very  satisfactory  dis- 
cussion, showing  that  the  term  brethren,  in  verse  40,  may  not  refer  to 
Lydia's  household,  but  all  the  believers  of  the  place.  Now,  if  our 
argument  required  us  to  prove,  that  the  brethren  here  must  be  only 
Lydia's  household,  we  never  could  prove  it.  But  our  argument  requires 
no  such  thing.  This  term  can  be  a  proof  on  neither  side,  for  it  is  con- 
sistent with  both. 

"  Equally  futile,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  are  the  proofs  adduced,  that 
there  were  no  infant  children  in  the  households  of  the  jailer,  and  of 


THE  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM.  1S5 

Stephanas."  Now,  if  there  are  any  on  my  side  of  the  question  who 
think  that  it  is  necessary  to  prove  this,  I  refer  them  to  Dr.  Wardlaw  for 
a  most  triumphant  refutation  of  their  sentiment.  But  did  not  Dr. 
Wardlaw  perceive  that  he  was  here  cutting  his  own  carotid  artery  ? 
Did  he  not  perceive  that  the  very  same  arguments  which  prove  that  the 
language  with  respect  to  the  faith  of  the  households  of  the  jailer  and  of 
Stephanas,  is  consistent  with  the  supposition  that  there  might  have  been 
infants  in  them,  equally  prove  that  there  might  have  been  infants  in 
them  without  being  baptized?  When  it  is  said  with  respect  to  the 
jailer,  that  Paul  "  spake  the  word  Of  the  Lord  to  all  that  were  in  his 
house,"  I  admit  that  there  might  have  been  infants.  And  when  it  is 
said  that  a  family  were  baptized,  infants  might  have  been  in  the  house, 
without  being  included  in  the  baptism.  The  commission  as  effectually 
excludes  them  from  baptism,  as  their  infancy  excludes  them  from  the 
number  of  those  to  whom  the  Gospel  is  preached. 

Dr.  Wardlaw  evidently  does  not  understand  the  argument  that  we 
draw  from  the  above  source.  We  do  not  attempt  to  prove  that  such 
phraseology  is  inconsistent  with  the  supposition,  that  infants  were  in  the 
families.  But  we  allege  these  facts,  to  show  that  if  there  were  baptized 
families,  there  were  also  believing  families ;  and  that  if,  in  a  believing  house, 
there  may  be  unbelieving  infants,  so  in  a  baptized  house,  there  may  be 
unbaptized  infants.  By  the  very  same  arguments  that  our  opponents 
show  that  there  might  have  been  unbelieving  infants  in  believing  houses, 
we  will  show  that  there  might  have  been  unbaptized  infants  in  baptized 
houses.  But  the  facts  alluded  to  are  especially  important,  because  they 
apply  to  the  very  houses  that  are  said  to  be  baptized.  This  not  only 
shows  that  it  was  possible  that  there  might  be  believing  houses,  but  it 
shows  that  there  were  such  houses.  Two  of  the  three  baptized  house- 
holds are  expressly  shown  to  be  believing  households.  If  this  is  not 
said  of  the  house  of  Lydia,  it  may  have  been  the  same ;  and  the  com- 
mission requires  that  it  should  be  so.  And  if  we  are  informed  of  the 
baptism  of  Lydia's  house,  and  not  of  their  faith,  we  are  told  of  the  faith 
of  the  house  of  Crispus,  and  not  of  their  baptism.  When  we  are 
informed  of  the  one,  the  other  is  necessarily  understood.  Why  do  our 
opponents  speak  of  their  households  at  all?  If  the  jailer  had  a  baptized 
house,  had  he  not  a  believing  house?  If  Stephanas  had  a  baptized 
house,  had  he  not  a  believing  house  ?  And  why  may  not  Lydia  have 
had  a  believing  house.  Our  cause  requires  no  more  than  that  the 
baptized  houses  may  have  been  believing  houses.  We  found  here  no 
argument ;  we  merely  reply  to  an  objection.  But  that  two  of  the  three 
baptized  houses  were  believing  houses,  is  actually  in  evidence.  There 
is  here  no  cover  for  infant  baptism. 

"  I  add,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  as  a  sixth  observation,  the  extreme 
improbability,  that  a  change,  which  must  have  been  felt  so  important 
by  those  whose  minds  had  been  all  along  habituated  to  the  connexion  of 
their  children  with  themselves  in  the  covenant  of  promise,  should  have 
taken  place  without  the  slightest  recorded  symptom  of  opposition  or 
demurring."  This  is  a  mode  of  reasoning  utterly  unwarrantable,  and 
deserves  no  attention.     We  learn  what  God  has  enjoined  from  what  is 

24 


186  THE  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 

written.  Even  if  the  fact  here  stated  could  not  at  all  be  accounted  for, 
it  could  not  be  admitted  as  evidence.  A  thousand  things  might  account 
for  it,  of  which  we  are  ignorant.  Is  every  thing  recorded  that  took 
place  in  the  apostolic  labours?  Their  adult  children  in  unbelief  were 
admitted  to  all  Jewish  ordinances;  is  there  any  recorded  complaint  of 
their  exclusion  from  Christian  ordinances?  Why  should  they  not  com- 
plain, that,  as  all  their  offspring  were  admitted  to  the  passover,  and  all 
the  privileges  of  the  Jewish  church,  they  should  be  kept  from  the  Lord's 
table?  But,  in  fact,  their  zeal  was  for  the  law,  and  nothing  would 
satisfy  them  in  the  room  of  it.  Their  prejudices  were  not  at  all  con- 
cerned about  the  extent  of  Christian  ordinances.  What  offended  them, 
was  the  giving  up  of  old  customs.  Of  the  extent  of  baptism,  whatever 
it  was,  they  could  not  be  ignorant.  Why  then  should  they  murmur 
against  the  known  will  of  God?  Upon  the  principle  of  this  observation, 
there  were  a  thousand  things  of  which  they  might  have  complained,  but 
of  which  no  complaint  is  recorded.  This  takes  for  granted,  also,  that 
there  was  a  spiritual  connexion  between  the  Jews  and  their  offspring, 
which  is  the  thing  to  be  proved, — a  thing  which  is  not  only  not  admitted 
to  be  true,  but  which  I  will  prove  to  be  false.  This  observation  proceeds 
from  first  to  last,  on  false  principles.  It  takes  for  granted,  that  every 
disagreeable  change  must  have  been  a  cause  of  murmuring ;  and  if  there 
was  murmuring,  it  must  have  been  recorded.  There  might  have  been 
a  disagreeable  change,  the  principle  of  which  might  be  so  well  under- 
stood as  to  prevent  murmuring ;  and  there  might  have  been  great  mur- 
muring without  any  record. 

"  Another  remarkable  circumstance,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  akin  to  the 
preceding,  is,  that  when  the  Judaizing  teachers  insisted  on  the  Gentile 
converts  submitting  to  circumcision,  although  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  this  was  done,  in  every  case,  in.  connexion  with  their  children,  yet, 
when  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  these  perverters  of  the  Gospel  came  to 
be  discussed  in  the  assembly  of  the  apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren  at 
Jerusalem,  no  notice  whatever  is  taken  of  the  inconsistency  with  the 
spirituality  of  the  new  dispensation,  of  administering  any  sign  to  children, 
on  the  admission  of  their  parents  into  the  Christian  commonwealth." 
This  is  egregious  trifling.  Are  all  things  recorded  that  were  said  on 
that  occasion?  Was  there  any  need  in  that  assembly  to  discuss  every 
error  connected  with  the  circumcision  of  the  Gentiles?  By  cutting  off 
the  circumcision  of  the  Gentiles,  was  not  the  circumcision  of  their  infants 
and  every  error  connected  with  it,  cut  off  also?  But  such  observations, 
so  far  from  deserving  an  answer,  deserve  no  mention.  Must  the  apostles 
give  a  whole  body  of  divinity,  when  they  denounce  a  particular  error? 
Dr.  Wardlaw,  we  are  willing  to  listen  to  anything  you  can  allege  from 
the  Scripture  in  support  of  your  opinion  ;  but  such  arguments  merit 
no  consideration.  This  observation  takes  it  for  granted,  that  the  apostles 
could  not  condemn  one  error,  without  expressly  denouncing  every  other 
error  connected  with  it ;  and  that  we  have,  in  the  records  of  the  Acts, 
every  thing  that  was  said  in  the  celebrated  meeting  at  Jerusalem. 

"  Let  it  be  further  considered,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  that  we  have  no 
recorded  instance  of  the  baptism  of  any  person,  grown  to  manhood,  that 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  187 

had  been  born  of  Jewish  converts,  or  of  Gentile  proselytes  to  the  faith 
of  Christ."  This  would  try  the  patience  of  Job.  Is  there  any  need  of 
such  an  example,  in  order  to  show  that  the  children  of  such  persons 
should  be  baptized  when  they  believe?  What  difference  is  there  be- 
tween such  and  others?  Is  not  the  law  of  the  commission  sufficient  to 
reach  them?  Is  it  not  sufficiently  clear?  "He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized."  "  Nor  have  we,"  continues  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  in  any  of  the 
apostolic  epistles  to  the  churches,  the  remotest  allusion,  in  the  form  of 
direction,  or  of  warning,  to  the  reception  of  such  children  by  baptism 
into  the  Christian  church,  upon  their  professing  the  faith  in  which  they 
had  been  brought  up."  A  very  good  reason  for  this.  The  same  law 
applies  to  all.  There  is  not  the  smallest  difference  between  the  ground 
of  receiving  the  child  of  a  heathen,  and  the  child  of  the  most  devoted 
saint.     When  they  believe,  they  are  received  equally  to  every  thing. 

"  This  supposition,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  let  it  be  further  noticed,  is 
in  coincidence  with  the  fact  of  children  being  addressed  in  the  apostolic 
epistles  to  the  churches  of  Christ.  Thus,  in  Eph.  vi.  1,  '  Children,  obey 
your  parents  in  the  Lord,  for  this  is  right.'  Col.  iii.  20,  '  Children,  obey 
your  parents  in  all  things ;  for  this  is  well  pleasing  unto  the  Lord.' " 
Now,  this  argument  is  deduced  from  Scripture ;  and  it  merits  an  answer. 
That  answer,  however,  is  easily  found.  The  children  here  addressed, 
were  believing  members  of  the  churches.  That  they  may  have  been  so, 
is  sufficient  for  my  purpose.  This  will  refute  an  objection.  But  that 
they  must  have  been  such,  is  beyond  question,  from  the  address  itself. 
Their  obedience  to  their  parents,  is  to  be  "  in  the  Lord,"  which  applies 
to  believers  only.  The  reasons  of  their  obedience,  also,  show  that  they 
were  such  children  as  were  capable  of  faith.  "  This  is  right." — "  This 
is  well  pleasing  unto  the  Lord."  These  are  motives  quite  suitable  to 
believers.  As  soon  as  children  can  evidence  that  they  act  from  these 
principles,  they  ought  to  be  baptized,  and  to  walk  in  all  the  ordinances 
of  the  Lord. 

But  Dr.  Wardlaw  thinks  that  the  children  here  addressed  cannot 
merely  be  such  adult  children  as  were  members  of  the  churches;  be- 
cause it  is  immediately  added,  "And  ye  fathers,  provoke  not  your  chil- 
dren to  wrath;  but  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord." — "  Fathers,  provoke  not  your  children  to  anger,  lest  they  be  dis- 
couraged." Now,  as  the  duty  of  fathers  extends  to  all  their  children, 
Dr.  Wardlaw  thinks  that  the  children  addressed,  must  be  all  the  chil- 
dren capable  of  receiving  instruction.  But  if  he  were  not  eager  in  the 
pursuit  of  something  to  defend  his  system,  his  powers  of  discrimina- 
tion would  discern,  that  in  these  injunctions,  neither  the  children  nor  the 
fathers  of  the  one  injunction,  correspond  to  the  children  or  the  fathers 
of  the  other.  In  fact,  it  might  happen  that  not  one  of  either  might 
correspond.  When  the  apostle  addresses  the  children,  he  addresses  all 
the  members  of  the  church  who  had  fathers ;  but  not  one  of  these 
fathers  might  be  in  the  church.  So  far  from  being  necessary  to  sup- 
pose, that  all  the  children  of  the  one  address  are  the  same  as  the  chil- 
dren of  the  other  address,  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  one  of 
them  was  the  same.     When  the  children  are  commanded  to  obey  their 


188  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

parents,  their  obedience  is  not  to  be  confined  to  such  fathers  as  were 
believers  and  members  of  the  church;  but  to  fathers,  whatever  they 
might  be.  And  when  fathers  are  commanded  not  to  provoke  their 
children,  &c,  the  injunction  extends  to  all  their  children.  The  fathers 
addressed  may  not  be  the  fathers  of  the  children  addressed ;  and  the 
children  addressed  may  not  be  the  children  of  the  fathers  addressed. 
Surely  Dr.  Wardlaw  must  be  in  the  habit  of  teaching  according  to  this 
distinction.  I  should  not  be  so  much  surprised  to  find  this  indistinct- 
ness of  conception  in  those  who  make  no  distinction  between  the  church 
and  the  world.  In  the  church  in  which  I  labour,  there  are  very  many 
children  whose  parents  do  not  belong  to  us ;  and  there  are  some  parents 
whose  children  belong  to  other  denominations.  Yet  these  apostolical  in- 
junctions are  constantly  inculcated.  Children  are  to  obey  their  parents 
in  the  Lord,  even  if  these  parents  are  infidels ;  and  parents  are  to  train 
up  their  children  in  the  nurture  of  the  Lord,  though  they  are  not  in  the 
church. 

"Do  our  Baptist  brethren,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "wait  till  their  children 
are  members  of  churches,  before  they  venture  to  put  their  finger  on  the 
passages  we  have  quoted,  and  say,  'This  is  addressed  to  you?'"  No 
man  who  speaks  correctly,  can  say  that  Ephes.  vi.  1,  Col.  iii.  20,  are 
expressly  directed  to  any  but  believers.  But  we  can  teach  the  most 
disobedient  children  their  duty  from  these  passages.  Though  we  can- 
not tell  unbelieving  children  that  these  exhortations  were  originally  ad- 
dressed to  such  as  they  are,  but  to  believing  children ;  yet  the  duty  in- 
culcated is  equally  incumbent  on  all.  The  moral  duties  inculcated  on 
believers,  are  equally  the  duty  of  unbelievers.  The  duty  of  obedience 
to  parents  is  not  a  new  duty,  that  results  from  connexion  with  a  church, 
or  with  receiving  the  gospel.  What,  then,  in  this  respect,  is  inculcated 
on  believing  children,  equally  shows  the  duty  of  unbelieving  children. 
Dr.  Wardlaw  will  not  say,  that  unbelieving  fathers  are  directly  address- 
ed in  the  above  injunctions ;  yet  could  he  not  apply  the  injunctions,  so 
as  to  make  them  bear  on  unbelieving  fathers?  Could  he  not  urge  on 
unbelieving  fathers,  their  guilt  in  not  training  up  their  children  in  the 
nurture  of  the  Lord?  Children,  from  the  first  dawn  of  reason,  may  be 
taught  their  duty  from  such  passages,  without  falsely  telling  them  that 
they  were  originally  addressed  to  children  as  young  as  themselves.  Now, 
Dr.  Wardlaw,  of  your  eleven  observations,  this  is  the  only  one  that  has 
even  a  show  of  argument ;  yet  I  am  sure  your  good  sense  will  admit  that 
it  is  answered. 

"  X.  The  circumstances  of  the  early  history  of  the  church,  after  the 
apostolic  age,  are  unaccountable  on  Anti-paedo-baptist  principles."  So, 
Dr.  Wardlaw,  you  are  returning  to  your  old  mode  of  reasoning  from  dif- 
ficulties. Well,  then,  I  will  admit,  for  sake  of  argument,  that  the  thing 
is  unaccountable.  It  may  be  true,  notwithstanding.  Many  things  that 
would  cast  light  upon  this  point,  may  be  buried  in  the  ruins  of  antiquity. 
I  am  not  obliged  to  account  for  it.  I  will  not  neglect  an  ordinance  of 
Christ,  I  will  not  adopt  an  ordinance  not  founded  by  Christ,  from  any 
difficulty  arising  from  church  history.  My  Bible,  like  that  of  Mr.  Ewing 
ends  with  the  book  of  Revelation. 


THE    SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM.  189 

But  there  is  nothing  more  obvious  to  a  candid  mind,  than  the  origin 
of  the  early  introduction  of  infant  baptism.  As  soon  as  baptism  was 
looked  on  as  essential  to  salvation,  infant  baptism  would  naturally  follow. 
Dr.  Wardlaw,  indeed,  says,  that  we  may  as  well  suppose  that  the  opinion 
arose  from  the  practice,  as  that  the  practice  arose  from  the  opinion.  It 
would  be  easy  to  show  that  this  is  not  the  case.  But  that  the  opinion 
may  have  given  rise  to  the  practice,  is  enough  for  my  purpose.  I  am  an- 
swering an  objection,  and  anything  that  will  account  for  the  difficulty, 
is  sufficient.  It  may  have  been  so,  is  quite  enough  for  me.  Even  thus 
much  I  am  not  bound  to  give.  Infant  communion  was  practised  as  well 
as  infant  baptism.  No  matter  what  was  the  origin  of  either  of  them  ;  if 
one  of  them  is  allowed  to  be  an  error,  the  early  practice  of  the  other 
cannot  be  alleged  as  proof  of  its  truth.  Even  were  it  granted  that 
infant  communion  was  grafted  on  infant  baptism,  still,  as  it  was  univer- 
sally received  so  early  without  having  been  from  the  apostles,  infant 
baptism  may  have  been  grafted  on  some  similar  stock.  It  is  impossible 
to  argue  consistently  for  infant  baptism  from  the  argument  of  antiquity, 
and  reject  the  same  argument  for  infant  communion.  If  infant  com- 
munion was  a  thing  not  instituted  by  the  apostles,  yet  universally  adopted 
so  early,  why  may  not  any  other  practice  have  been  adopted  universally 
without  apostolic  institution?  The  practice  of  the  earliest  antiquity, 
with  respect  to  the  ordinances  of  Christ,  is  a  matter  of  much  interest ; 
and  I  am  convinced  that  the  subject  has  never  been  set  in  that  light, 
which  the  remains  of  antiquity  would  afford  to  candour  and  industry. 
If  God  spares  me  life  and  leisure,  I  may  yet  endeavour  to  exhibit  its 
testimony.  But  an  ordinance  of  Christ  I  will  never  ground  on  anything 
but  the  word  of  God.     Many  things  true,  may  be  wholly  unaccountable. 

"  XI.  I  have  only  one  other  particular,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  to  add 
to  this  series.  It  is  the  remarkable  fact  of  the  entire  absence,  so  far  as 
my  recollection  serves  me,  of  anything  resembling  the  baptism  of  house- 
holds or  families,  in  the  accounts  of  the  propagation  of  the  gospel  by 
our  Baptist  brethren."  Now,  at  first  ^ight,  this  has  an  imposing  appear- 
ance, but,  on  reflection,  it  vanishes  into  air.  There  are  not  now  many 
examples  of  the  abundant  success  that  the  Gospel  had  in  the  apostles' 
days.  We  do  not  often  find  that  men  now  believe  by  households,  more 
than  that  they  are  baptized  by  households.  I  suppose  that  the  Baptist 
missionaries  have  a  baptized  household,  as  often  as  they  have  a  believing" 
household.  They  will  baptize  Krishnoo  and  his  family,  if  Krishnoo  and 
his  family  believe.  I  have  never  seen  three  thousand  baptized  on  one 
day,  yet  I  have  no  doubt  that  three  thousand  believed  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  However,  Baptist  writers  have  produced  a  number  of  in- 
stances of  baptized  households.  But  as  there  is  no  argument  in  the 
observation,  I  need  not  refer  to  them. 

In  fact,  I  have  never  examined  a  series  of  arguments  more  flimsy  than 
these.  The  whole  chain  is  no  better  than  a  web  of  gossamer  across  the 
high  road.  It  cannot  stop  the  passage  of  a  child.  Josephus,  on  one 
occasion,  took  a  town  by  presenting  a  fleet  before  it,  in  which  each  ship 
had  only  four  mariners.  If  any  man  surrenders  to  Dr.  Wardlaw's  fleet, 
it  must  be  from  want  of  knowing  what  is  in  the  ships.     The  man  who 


190  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

can  satisfy  himself  with  such  arguments  as  these,  need  never  want  proof 
of  anything  which  he  wishes  to  be  true. 

Let  us  now  take  a  look  at  Mr.  Ewing's  generalship,  with  respect  to 
the  households.  "  Family  baptism,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  as  mentioned  in 
the  New  Testament,  is  the  more  remarkable,  that  no  other  ordinance, 
and  no  privilege  of  any  kind,  is  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  as 
given  to  families."  The  reason  is  obvious.  Baptism  belongs  to  indi- 
viduals, and  when  a  household  believed,  it  was  baptized  on  the  same 
footing  as  an  individual.  The  Lord's  supper  belongs  to  Christians,  not 
as  individuals,  but  as  a  church.  It  might  as  well  be  asked,  why  is  bap- 
tism given  to  an  individual,  seeing  the  other  ordinances  are  observed 
socially?  Mr.  Ewing  gives  the  answer  to  himself,  in  the  next  sentence. 
"  Mention,"  says  he,  "  is  made  of  churches  in  the  house  of  some;  but  it 
is  not  said  that  these  churches  consisted  of  a  believer  and  his  house." 
To  this  the  reply  is  obvious.  If  a  believer  and  his  family  were  not  a 
church,  why  is  it  strange  that  they  had  not  the  ordinances  that  belong 
to  a  church?  "  Neither  are  a  believer  and  his  house,"  says  Mr.  Ewing, 
"  ever  said  to  have  received  the  Lord's  supper."  I  reply,  If  they  were 
only  a  part  of  a  church,  why  should  they  have  the  Lord's  supper  ?  If 
they  were  a  church,  they  had  the  Lord's  supper,  whether  it  is  recorded 
or  not.     There  is  no  necessity  for  any  such  record. 

"  I  shall  now  be  asked,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  if  all  or  any  of  the  families 
of  believers,  where  the  family  baptism  is  said  to  have  been  practised, 
can  be  proved  to  have  contained  infants?"  Yes,  Mr.  Ewing,  we  will 
ask  this  question,  and  notwithstanding  all  you  have  said,  we  will  continue 
to  insist  on  this  question.  "  I  answer,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  that  '  a  house' 
or  family  is  a  term  which  includes,  in  its  meaning,  infants  as  properly 
as  adult  children ;  and  that,  in  not  one  of  these  families  mentioned  in 
connexion  with  baptism,  is  any  exception  made,  for  the  purpose  of 
excluding  infants."  This  is  granted  fully.  But  it  is  more  difficult  to 
conceive  how  such  arguments  can  impose  on  a  sound  understanding, 
than  it  is  to  answer  them.  House  or  fainily  includes  infants  as  well  as 
adults — if  infants  are  in  them.  But  from  the  term  itself,  this  cannot  be 
learned.  This  is  the  point,  Mr.  Ewing.  A  house  may  have  infants, 
or  it  may  not  have  infants  ;  therefore  from  the  term  we  can  learn  nothing 
on  this  subject.  The  eunuch,  no  doubt,  had  a  house ;  and  if  his  house 
had  been  said  to  be  baptized,  Mr.  Ewing  would  not  contend,  that  his 
infants  were  of  necessity  baptized.  We  should  know,  without  any 
intimation,  that  the  term  house  did  not  include  his  children.  Just  so 
from  the  commission,  we  know  that  infants  are  not  included  among 
those  who  were  baptized  in  the  households.  The  commission  is  as  sure 
a  commentary  on  the  households  of  Lydia,  Stephanas,  and  the  jailer,  as 
the  state  of  the  eunuch  would  have  been  in  a  like  case.  But  Mr.  Ewing 
says,  infants  are  not  excepted  in  these  households.  Nor  are  they 
excepted  in  the  supposed  case  of  the  eunuch.  There  is  no  need  for  the 
history  to  except  them.  They  are  excepted  by  that  commission  that 
must  guide  all  practice.  It  is  a  matter  of  the  highest  astonishment  to 
me,  that  Mr.  Ewing  and  Dr.  Wardlaw  can  see  the  necessity  of  an  excep- 
tion in  so  many  other  cases  to  such  indefinite  phrases,  and  yet  not  have 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  191 

the  candour  to  admit  the  possibility  of  a  like  exception  here.  If  the 
commission  does  not  include  infants,  are  they  not  of  necessity  excluded 
with  respect  to  the  households?  Can  anything  be  more  obvious  to 
common  sense,  than  that  as  a  house  or  family  may  or  may  not  have  in- 
fants, the  baptism  of  a  house  is  no  proof  that  infants  were  baptized  ? — 
Can  anything  be  more  obvious,  than  that  as  we  every  day  use  such  phra- 
seology with  the  supposed  exceptions,  there  may  be  such  exceptions  as 
to  the  households  ?  Even  if  infants  were  proved  to  have  been  in  those 
houses,  it  would  signify  nothing.  The  phraseology  admits  the  exception 
of  them,  and  the  commission  demands  it.  The  pertinacity  with  which 
our  opponents  continue  to  rest  on  the  households,  is  a  discredit  to  their 
good  sense,  as  well  as  their  candour.  There  is  no  axiom  in  mathema- 
tics more  clear,  than  that  the  households  are  nothing  to  the  purpose  of 
infant  baptism.     If  the  term  household  does  not  necessarily  imply 

INFANTS,  THEN  THERE  IS  NO  EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  TERM  THAT  THERE 
WERE  INFANTS  IN  THOSE  HOUSEHOLDS.  Again,  AS  SUCH  PHRASEOLOGY 
IS,  IN  DAILY  CONVERSATION,  USED  WITH  EXCEPTIONS  ;  SO,  THOUGH  IN- 
FANTS HAD  BEEN  IN  THOSE    HOUSEHOLDS,  THE    KNOWN    LIMITATIONS    OF 

the  commission  would  except  them.  This  is  as  obvious  as  that  two 
and  two  make  four.  It  is  useless  to  reason  with  any  who  are  so  perverse 
as  to  deny  what  is  self-evident ;  their  disease  cannot  be  cured  by  argu- 
ment. When  Mr.  Ewing  says,  that  in  the  narrative  of  the  households 
there  is  no  "  exception  made  for  the  purpose  of  excluding  infants,"  it  is 
virtually  admitted  that  such  phraseology  admits  exceptions.  If  so,  may 
not  the  exception  in  the  commission  be  as  valid  as  an  exception  in  the 
history  ?  Nay,  the  exception  of  the  commission  makes  an  exception  in 
the  history  perfectly  unnecessary.  The  commission  enjoins  the  baptism 
of  believers,  and  from  that  baptism  all  others  are  therefore  for  ever  ex- 
cluded. When  a  household  were  baptized  according  to  this  commission, 
they  must  have  been  believers.  The  commission  cannot  be  extended 
farther.  Nay,  if  a  commission  had  afterwards  been  given  to  baptize 
infants,  it  could  never  be  reduced  to  this  commission  ;  it  could  not  have 
been  explained  as  included  in  it,  nor  a  part  of  it.  It  would  be  a  per- 
fectly distinct  commission,  containing  a  quite  different  ordinance.  Till 
infants  are  believers,  they  can  never  be  baptized  according  to  a  commis- 
sion that  enjoins  the  baptism  of  believers.  If  there  is  a  commission  to 
enlist  recruits  six  feet  high,  when  we  afterwards  read  that  a  family  were 
enlisted  without  specifying  their  height,  we  know  that  none  of  them 
were  under  the  standard.  Were  it  not  for  the  strength  of  prejudice,  this 
form  of  expression  could  not  for  a  moment  embarrass  the  weakest  of  the 
children  of  God. 

"If  a  man  and  his  family  are  degraded,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "does not 
the  degradation  include  infants  ?  If  a  man  and  his  family  are  ennobled, 
does  not  the  nobility  include  infants?"  It  does  so,  not  from  the  neces- 
sity of  the  phraseology,  but  from  what  is  known  of  the  laws.  Were  it 
said  that  a  man  and  his  family  were  hanged  for  murder,  his  infants 
would  be  excluded.  Were  it  said  that  after  a  rebellion  a  man  and  his 
family  received  the  thanks  of  his  Majesty  for  their  loyalty,  it  would  not 
be  supposed  that  the  infants  had  carried  arms.     "  If  a  man  and  his 


192  THE    SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM. 

family,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  are  baptized,  does  not  the  language  convey 
a  similar  meaning,  namely,  that  the  baptism  includes  infants  ?"  No,  Mr. 
Ewing,  because  it  is  known  from  the  commission  that  infants  are  not 
included :  whereas  in  the  other  cases,  it  is  known  that  infants  are  included. 
In  neither  case  can  we  learn  the  extent  of  the  application  of  the  phrase 
from  the  phrase  itself.  It  is  indefinite,  and  may  include  all,  or  may  ad- 
mit exceptions. 

"  In  calculating,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  as  some  do,  the  probability  of  the 
case,  many  confine  their  attention  to  the  four  families  mentioned  in  Acts 
x.,  Acts  xvi.  and  Cor.  i."  Calculating  probability!  Is  a  law  of  God  to 
depend  on  a  calculation  of  probabilities  1  I  would  as  soon  calculate 
nativities  by  the  stars.  "  But  these,"  he  continues,  "  are  only  a  specimen 
of  the  hundreds  and  thousands  of  families,  which,  in  the  propagation 
of  the  Gospel,  were  treated  in  the  same  way."  Who  told  this  to  Mr. 
Ewing  ?  Has  he  got  it  in  a  dream,  or  in  a  vision  1  If  Mr.  Ewing  has 
not  facts  enough  from  which  he  may  reason,  he  can  make  them.  There 
may  have  been  many  other  households  of  the  same  kind ;  but  that  there 
were  so,  is  not  in  evidence,  and  I  will  not  admit  it.  But  I  reject  it  not 
for  the  sake  of  this  question ;  because,  if  there  were  a  million  of  such 
families,  for  every  one  that  is  mentioned,  they  were  all  believing  families. 
The  commission  leaves  no  doubt  of  this.  Of  the  three  families  men- 
tioned, two  of  them  are  expressly  represented  as  believing  families. — 
Why  might  not  the  other  be  so  1  I  do  not  profess  to  have  the  gift  of 
second  sight.  I  do  not  know  how  many  hundred  families  resembled 
these  in  their  baptism.  But  I  can  judge  of  the  evidence  before  me ; 
and  what  number  of  families  soever  were  baptized,  the  same  number 
believed. 

But  it  seems  there  is  one  baptized  household  at  least,  in  which  it  is 
even  certain  that  there  were  no  believers  but  the  head  of  the  family. 
"  When  Lydia  was  baptized  with  her  house,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  we  are 
made  certain  that  they  were  none  of  them  believers  excepting  herself." 
Whence,  reader,  can  come  this  certainty  ?  You  will  say,  I  suppose, 
that  Mr.  Ewing  has  received  some  secret  revelation  on  this  point.  No, 
no,  I  assure  you,  Mr.  Ewing  professes  to  get  this  evidence  out  of  the 
narrative  itself.  The  evidence  is  this :  "  For  she  urged  Christian  cha- 
racter, as  the  argument  for  prevailing  with  Paul  and  Silas  to  accept  her 
hospitality.  Unquestionably  she  put  her  argument  as  strongly  as  she 
could ;  yet  as  it  was  her  heart  only  which  the  Lord  opened,  ver.  14,  so 
she  could  not  include  so  much  as  one  in  the  family,  along  with  herself 
as  a  believer ;  but  was  obliged  to  use  the  singular  number,  saying,  "  If 
ye  have  judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  house  and 
abide.'  "-  Now,  this  is  so  shadowy  an  argument,  that  it  is  as  difficult  to 
get  at  it,  as  it  was  for  Fingal  to  strike  the  ghosts.  It  is  as  thin  as 
vapour.  Had  she  possessed  a  thousand  servants  all  believers,  would 
she  have  spoken  in  a  different  manner  ?  Had  there  been  a  thousand 
the  house  was  hers,  the  hospitality  was  hers,  and  the  ground  of  the 
apostles'  receiving  it  must  be  her  faithfulness.  The  household  had 
nothing  to  do  with  this  invitation ;  their  faithfulness  had  no  concern  in 
it.     At  what  a  loss  must  the  cause  of  infant  baptism  be,  when  such  a 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF   BAPTISM.  193 

man  as  Mr.  Ewing  is  obliged  to  make  such  a  defence !  Must  Lydia 
have  been  schooled  by  Sir  Roger  de  Coverley's  old  butler,  that  she 
must  say,  our  house,  our  faithfulness,  &c.  ?  The  man  who  can  take  this 
for  evidence,  will  never  want  evidence  for  anything  to  his  taste.  I  never 
met  any  writer  more  intrepid  than  Mr.  Ewing,  in  cutting  down  opposing 
evidence ;  nor  more  easily  pleased  with  evidence  on  his  own  side. 

Alexander  himself  would  not  more  rashly  draw  his  sword  to  cut  a 
Gordian  knot;  and  in  other  things  Popish  credulity  itself  cannot  be  more 
easily  satisfied  with  the  proof  of  the  obedience  of  the  church.     What 
Mr.  Ewing  here  considers  certain  evidence,  I  maintain  is  not  even  the 
shadow  of  evidence.     If  the  Scriptures  did  not  furnish  me  with  better 
arguments  for  my  sentiments,  I  would  let  them  sink  to  the  bottom  of  the 
ocean.     Mr.  Ewing  is  right  in  not  surrendering  a  battery,  while  it  is 
capable  of  defence ;  but  why  will  he  keep  his  flag  flying,  while  it  is 
evident,  from  his  fire,  that  the  ammunition  is  expended  ?    Mr.  Ewing  is 
not  at  all  startled  at  the  consequence  of  this  opinion,  namely,  that  the 
unbelieving  adults  of  Lydia  were  baptized  on  her  faith.     His  boldness 
is  not  to  be  frightened.     It  requires  a  more  than  ordinary  audacity  to 
say,  in  the  face  of  the  commission  of  Jesus  Christ,  that  unbelieving 
adults  should  be  baptized,  if  they  happen  to  be  in  the  house  of  a  believer. 
Jesus   Christ  has  commanded  believers  to  be  baptized.     Mr.  Ewing 
commands  all  the  unbelievers  in  every  believer's  house  to  be  baptized. 
Christians,  whether  will  ye  obey  your  Lord  and  Saviour,  or  Mr.  Ewing? 
How  long,  Mr.  Ewing,  how  long  will  you  make  void  the  commandment 
of  God  by  your  inventions?     Hath  not  Jesus  said,  "He  that  breaketh 
the  least  of  these  my  commandments,  and  teacheth  men  so,  shall  be 
called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?"     The  language  of  Lydia  is 
consistent  with  the  supposition  that  there  was  not  an  unbeliever  in  her 
house.     So  far  is  it  from  implying  that  her  family  were  all  unbelievers. 
"  The  house  of  Stephanas,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  addicted  themselves 
to  the  ministry  of  the  saints,"  1  Cor.  xvi.  15.     "  Were  this  a  proof  that 
they  had  among  them  no  infants,  we  might  find  a  proof  that  the  house 
of  the  Rechabites  had  among  them  no  infants,  because  in  Jer.  xxxv. 
2 — 11,  they  addicted  themselves  to  perform  the  commandment  of  their 
father."     Now,  this  is  true :   and  this  is  the  very  argument  by  which 
we  prove,  that,  even  if  the  households  had  contained  infants,  there  is  no 
necessity  that  they  should  be  supposed  to  have  been  baptized.     We  do 
not  argue,  that,  because  the  baptized  households  were  believing  house- 
holds, there  could  not  be  any  infants  in  the  houses.    But  we  argue,  that 
if  there  were   baptized  households,  these   households  were  believing 
households;  and  that  in  the  household  of  the  jailer  and  of  Stephanas  we 
have  direct  evidence.     We  could  have  known  this  by  the  commission, 
had  the  narrative  been  silent.     But  when  the  narrative  itself  shows  that 
they  had  believing  households,  what  difficulty  is  in  the  expression  bap- 
tized households  ?     Is  not  the  one  commensurate  with  the  other  ?     The 
importance  of  the  fact  of  the  believing  households  is,  not  to  show  that 
there  could  be  no  infants  in  those  houses,  but  to  show  that  it  is  an 
historical  fact  that  there  were  in  those  houses  believers  to  be  called  a 
baptized  household ;  and  to  show  that  if  there  were  infants  in  those 

25 


194  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

houses,  they  may  not  be  included  among  the  baptized,  as  they  certainly 
are  not  included  among  the  believing.  The  fact  is  very  important,  for 
in  replying  to  it,  our  opponents  are  obliged  to  refute  themselves.  If 
there  may  have  been  infants  where  a  house  is  said  to  believe,  without 
supposing  that  infants  are  believers,  so  where  a  house  is  said  to  be 
baptized,  there  may  have  been  in  it  infants  who  were  not  baptized.  If 
any  man  cannot  understand  the  weight  of  this  argument,  it  is  not 
argument  can  convince  him. 

Mr.  Ewing  asks  his  opponents,  "  if  they  admit  the  general  fact  of 
family  baptism,  why  they  do  not  practise  accordingly  1"  And  do  they 
not  practise  according  to  the  view  in  which  they  admit  this  fact?  Is 
there  any  inconsistency  between  their  practice  and  their  admission  ? 
Are  they  inconsistent  with  themselves,  because  they  practise  according 
to  their  own  views,  and  not  according  to  the  views  of  Mr.  Ewing  ?  Mr. 
Ewing  and  Dr.  Wardlavv  strangely  take  it  for  granted  that  the  house- 
holds were  baptized,  not  on  their  own  faith,  but  on  that  of  the  head  of 
the  family,  which  is  not  hinted  in  the  narrative,  and  is  contrary  to  the 
commission.  "  To  say  they  baptize  whole  families  when  whole  families 
believe,"  says  he,  "  appears  to  me  to  be  treating  the  historical  Scriptures 
as  nugatory."  But  why,  Mr.  Ewing,  does  this  treat  the  historical 
Scriptures  as  nugatory  ?  "  Any  view  of  this  subject,"  says  Mr.  Ewing, 
"  would  lead  us  to  baptize  whole  families,  or  whole  nations,  if  they  all 
believed."  Doubtless.  And  may  we  not  say  the  same  thing  of  indi- 
vidual baptism  ?  Is  the  history  of  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch  and  that 
of  Paul  nugatory,  because,  if  neither  of  them  had  been  recorded,  we 
should  have  known  from  the  commission  that  believers  ought  to  be 
baptized,  and  that  faith  is  necessary  to  baptism?  There  may  be  much 
use  in  recording  these  facts,  though  they  do  not  bear  Mr.  Ewing's  infer- 
ence. It  is  not  warrantable  to  say,  that  a  portion  of  Scripture  must 
have  a  certain  meaning,  because  we  can  see  no  use  in  it,  if  it  has  not 
that  meaning.  "  It  would  not  have  made  the  slightest  difference  in  the 
practice,"  continues  Mr.  Ewing,  "  had  no  mention  been  made  of  family 
baptism  at  all."  Not  the  slightest  difference.  Nor  would  it  have  made 
the  slightest  difference  with  respect  to  the  baptizing  of  individuals,  had 
no  example  of  baptism  been  recorded.  Yet  none  of  the  examples  is 
nugatory;  the  perverseness  of  Christians  requires  them  all.  The 
family  baptisms  recorded  can  warrant  no  family  baptisms  but  such  as 
are  recorded  ;  and  two  of  these  are  expressly  stated  as  believers,  and  the 
remaining  third  must  be  according  to  the  commission.  "  Unless,  there- 
fore," says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  we  admit  some  peculiar  connexion  between  the 
extent  of  a  family,  and  the  extent  of  the  administration  of  baptism,  I 
apprehend  that  family  baptism  is  a  Scripture  fact  which  we  do  not  yet 
understand."  Does  not  Mr.  Ewing  perceive  that  the  same  thing  might 
be  said  with  as  good  reason  with  respect  to  the  house  of  the  Rechabites, 
and  all  the  examples  quoted  by  Dr.  Wardlaw  of  similar  phraseology  ? 
On  Mr.  Ewing's  principles,  might  I  not  say,  unless  every  infant  of  the 
house  of  the  Rechabites  was  brought  into  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  a 
command  given  to  him  to  drink  wine,  the  statement  of  Jer.  xxxv.  2 — 1 1 
is  absurd?     Suppose  the  government  issues  a  commission  to  raise  a 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  195 

number  of  regiments,  and  to  enlist  all  men  fit  for  service.  In  the 
course  of  the  execution  of  this  commission,  we  read  that  they  enlisted  A 
and  his  family,  B  and  his  family,  C  and  his  family.  Should  we  not 
know,  without  a  word  on  the  subject,  that  the  enlisted  families  were  men 
fit  for  service?  There  might  be  infants  in  the  houses,  but  they  were 
no  part  of  the  enlisted  families.  We  should  not  require  to  be  informed 
that  two  of  these  families  were  active  and  brave,  in  order  to  convince  us 
that  they  were  not  infants  or  women,  but  men.  It  is  only  the  perverse- 
ness  of  Christians  in  the  things  of  God  that  requires  such  illustrations. 
What  shall  we  say  of  the  person  who  would  observe,  that,  unless  it  is 
admitted,  that  whenever  the  head  of  a  family  is  enlisted,  every  member 
of  his  family,  man,  woman,  and  child,  are  enlisted  also ;  he  can  see  no 
meaning  in  the  statement  of  the  enlistment  of  the  three  families  ?  The 
fact  that  three  families  are  enlisted  with  the  heads  of  the  families,  does 
not  imply  that  all  families  are  enlisted  with  the  heads,  nor  that  men, 
women,  and* children  are  enlisted.  It  is  strange  that  our  acute  opponents 
cannot  see  so  obvious  a  truth.  It  is  only  in  the  things  of  God  that  men 
are  children. 

Mr.  Ewing  here  takes  it  for  granted,  that  it  is  an  admitted  fact,  that 
all  families  were  baptized  with  the  head,  and  on  the  faith  of  the  head, 
without  any  faith  of  their  own ;  nay,  except  they  contradicted  and  blas- 
phemed. This  is  not  in  evidence.  The  three  examples  of  baptized 
households  state  nothing  of  the  baptism  of  the  household  on  the  faith  of 
the  head,  and  the  commission  forbids  the  thought.  There  might  be 
many  such  families,  but  how  many  is  not  known ;  nor  can  the  number 
at  all  influence  the  question.  How  many  soever  they  might  be,  they 
must  all  have  been  believing  households.  To  justify  Mr.  Ewing' s  ob- 
servation, the  commission  must  have  been,  baptize  believers  and  their 
households. 

"  I  wished,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  to  induce  my  friends,  who  have  no 
experience  on  the  subject,  to  compare  their  feelings  with  the  feelings  of 
those  who  have  such  experience."  Feelings  have  nothing  to  do  with 
this  question,  more  than  with  a  demonstration  in  Euclid.  This  consult- 
ing of  our  feelings  is  the  ground  of  a  great  part  of  our  opposition  to  the 
word  of  God.  Peter  consulted  his  feelings,  and  when  God  said,  "  Rise, 
Peter,  kill  and  eat,"  he  arrogantly  replied,  "  Not  so,  Lord,  for  I  have 
never  eaten  anything  common  or  unclean."  Shame,  Peter,  is  there  any- 
thing unclean  that  God  commands  to  be  eaten  ?  What  made  certain 
meats  unclean  to  Israel  but  God's  command  ? 

"  You  keep  aloof,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  from  this  practice,  from  your 
apprehension  of  difficulty  with  the  case  of  infants."  Not  so,  Mr.  Ewing  : 
had  the  command  been  to  baptize  the  households  of  believers  on  the 
faith  of  their  heads,  we  should  find  no  difficulty  with  infants.  We 
would  baptize  them,  if  the  command  included  them,  as  soon  as  we  would 
baptize  the  apostles.  "  Now,  I  frankly  confess,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  that 
were  anything,  after  getting  a  Divine  warrant,  to  deter  me  from  the 
practice,  it  would  be  rather  the  case  of  adults."  Strange  language, 
indeed !  This  sounds  harshly  in  my  ears.  Deter  from  a  practice  for 
which  there  is  a  Divine  warrant !    He  must  have  a  scrupulous  conscience 


196  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

indeed,  who  will  speak  of  being  deterred  from  executing  a  Divine 
warrant!  I  would  baptize  Satan  himself,  without  the  smallest  scruple, 
had  I  a  Divine  warrant.  Give  us  a  Divine  warrant,  and  we  have  no 
objection,  from  our  feelings,  to  baptize  infants.  But  it  appears  that 
Mr.  Ewing  finds  some  difficulty  in  the  case  of  baptizing  unbelieving 
adults  on  the  faith  of  the  head  of  a  family.  I  am  glad  of  it.  He  may 
yet  be  led  to  see  that  it  is  an  awful  thing  to  allege  a  warrant  from  Jesus 
to  baptize  unbelievers,  when  the  apostolical  commission  includes  be- 
lievers only.  "  But  the  truth  is,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  infants  and  adults 
are  precisely  on  a  footing,  in  regard  to  the  regenerating  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  of  which  baptism  is  a  figure."  But  are  adult  unbelievers  to  have 
the  figure  of  regeneration  which  they  have  not  yet  experienced  ?  This 
contradicts  every  thing  exhibited  in  the  figure  of  baptism,  which  always 
supposes  that  the  person  baptized  is  already  regenerated.  Mr.  Ewing 
says,  that  "  in  the  original  propagation  of  the  Gospel,  when  the  head  of 
a  family  believes,  '  salvation  is  come  to  his  house,'  Luke"  xix.  9 ;  and 
consequently  the  whole  house  may  be,  nay,  ought  to  be,  baptized  along 
with  him,  (with  no  exception  because  some  of  them  may  be  young,)  but 
except  they  have  grown  so  old,  and  so  rebellious  against  both  their 
Father  in  heaven  and  their  parents  on  earth,  as  to  refuse  the  ordinance, 
and  to  contradict  and  blaspheme  the  truth  which  it  accompanies."  This 
is  a  most  astonishing  avowal.  Mr.  Ewing  saw  where  his  doctrine  would 
lead,  and  he  has  boldly  avowed  the  consequences.  Every  unbeliever  in 
the  house  may  be  baptized,  on  the  faith  of  the  head,  except  he  refuses. 
I  do  not  envy  the  conscience  that  can  receive  this  without  qualms ; 
I  think  it  will  be  swallowed  with  difficulty  by  many  of  the  Independents. 
But  when  Mr.  Ewing  has  avowed  this  monstrous  doctrine,  where  will  he 
find  a  warrant?  Not  in  Luke  xix.  9.  This  cannot  imply  that  the 
moment  the  head  of  a  family  believes,  all  the  members  of  the  family  also 
believe,  or  are  actually  made  partakers  of  salvation.  If  not,  it  is  no 
warrant  to  baptize  them.  But  if  it  does  imply  that  they  all  actually 
believe  with  the  heart,  then  it  is  believer  baptism.  Nor  does  this  pass- 
age imply  that  all  the  members  of  a  believer's  house  will  at  last  believe, 
— though  even  this  would  be  no  warrant  for  their  baptism,  which  implies 
faith  at  the  time  of  baptism.  Is  it  a  fact  that  all  the  slaves,  and  servants, 
and  children  of  a  believer,  will  certainly  be  saved?  Let  us  hear  the 
passage  itself:  "And  Jesus  entered  and  passed  through  Jericho.  And, 
behold,  there  was  a  man  named  Zaccheus,  which  was  the  chief  among 
the  publicans,  and  he  was  rich.  And  he  sought  to  see  Jesus,  who  he 
was ;  and  could  not  for  the  press,  because  he  was  little  of  stature.  And 
he  ran  before,  and  climbed  up  into  a  sycamore  tree  to  see  him,  for  he 
was  to  pass  that  way.  And  when  Jesus  came  to  the  place,  he  looked 
up,  and  saw  him,  and  said  unto  him,  Zaccheus,  make  haste  and  come 
down,  for  to-day  I  must  abide  at  thy  house.  And  he  made  haste  and 
came  down,  and  received  him  joyfully.  And  when  they  saw  it,  they  all 
murmured,  saying,  That  he  was  gone  to  be  guest  with  a  man  that  is  a 
sinner.  And  Zaccheus  stood,  and  said  unto  the  Lord,  Behold,  Lord,  the 
half  of  my  goods  I  give  to  the  poor :  and  if  I  have  taken  anything  from 
any  man  by  false  accusation,  I  restore  him  four-fold      And  Jesus  said 


THE   SUBJECTS   OP   BAPTISM.  197 

unto  him,  This  day  is  salvation  come  to  this  house,  forasmuch  as  he  also 
is  a  son  of  Abraham.  For  the  son  of  man  is  come  to  seek  and  to  save 
that  which  was  lost."  Now,  the  salvation  that  came  to  his  house,  ap- 
pears to  me  to  be  evidently  his  own  salvation.  Zaccheus  had  been  a 
man  notoriously  a  sinner.  The  people  all  murmured,  even  when  Jesus 
proposed  to  be  his  guest.  The  Lord  touched  the  heart  of  Zaccheus, 
and  enabled  him  to  give  in  his  confession — the  clearest  evidence  of  his 
conversion.  The  Lord,  therefore,  recognises  him  publicly  before  the 
people  who  murmured,  and  declared  that  Zaccheus  was  not  only  worthy 
of  being  his  host,  but  that  he  who  was  among  the  chief  of  sinners,  was 
now  a  member  of  his  kingdom  :  salvation  was  now  come  to  that  house 
which  the  crowd  looked  upon  as  so  unworthy  to  receive  the  Messiah.  It 
was  now  the  house  of  a  saved  sinner.  Jesus  next  gave  the  reason  for 
saying  that  salvation  was  come  to  that  house :  "  He  also  is  a  son  of 
Abraham."  That  he  was  a  natural  descendant  of  Abraham,  there  was 
no  question ;  but  now  he  is  a  son  of  Abraham's  faith.  The  Lord  Jesus 
closes  with  a  reason  that  confirms  this  view :  "  For  the  Son  of  man  is 
come  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost."  As  if  he  had  said, 
"  Think  it  not  strange  that  Zaccheus  is  saved,  and  that  I  have  called 
him  a  son  of  Abraham.  He  was  a  notorious  sinner,  indeed,  but  I  have 
come  to  save  such." 

Many  suppose  that  the  phrase,  "  Salvation  is  come  to  this  house," 
means  that  others  in  the  house  had  believed ;  or  that  it  was  an  intima- 
tion that  they  would  believe.  As  far  as  concerns  the  question  of  baptism, 
I  have  not  the  smallest  objection  to  either  of  these  views.  My  objection 
is,  that  they  are  not  the  import  of  the  passage.  I  am  quite  willing  to 
admit,  I  am  joyful  in  believing,  that  when  the  Gospel  comes  to  a  house, 
it  generally  spreads.  But  this  is  no  foundation  for  baptizing  an  unbe- 
lieving family,  and  does  not  seem  to  be  contained  in  this  passage.  If 
salvation  comes  to  a  house,  let  the  house  be  baptized  as  far  as  the  salva- 
tion is  known  to  reach. 

But  by  what  authority  does  Mr.  Ewing  make  the  exception,  with  re- 
spect to  those  who  refuse  the  ordinance,  and  blaspheme  ?  Children  have 
no  right  to  refuse ;  and  slaves  may  be  forced  to  submit.  Those  must 
all  be  baptized  with  the  household.  Ah,  Mr.  Ewing !  is  such  a  house- 
hold as  you  represent  to  be  entitled  to  baptism,  at  all  like  the  house  of 
the  jailer,  and  the  house  of  Stephanas?  How  unlike  to  your  commis- 
sion to  baptize,  is  the  commission  of  Christ !  Christ  says,  "  believe  and 
be  baptized :"  Mr.  Ewing  says,  "  baptize  all  the  unbelievers  of  a  believ- 
er's house,  except  they  refuse."  Is  it  not  a  fearful  thing  to  have  on 
record  before  heaven  and  earth,  a  document  at  such  variance  with  the 
commission  of  Christ?  I  know  Christ  will  forgive  the  ignorance  of  his 
people ;  but  to  teach  his  children  to  err  from  his  commandments,  is  not 
the  way  to  gain  ten  cities  in  the  day  of  judgment. 

Was  there  ever  anything  so  absurd  as  to  stretch  the  commission  to 
baptize,  by  the  use  of  an  indefinite  word  in  the  history  of  the  execution 
of  the  commission?  Must  not  the  commission  limit  this  indefinite 
word  ?  Does  not  Mr.  Ewing,  does  not  Dr.  Wardlaw,  show  examples  that 
justify  such  limitation  of  indefinite  or  general  language?     Why  do  they 


198  THE  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 

contend,  that  there  may  be  infants  in  a  believing  house,  though  they  do 
not  believe  ;  when  they  will  not  allow  that  there  may  have  been  infants 
in  a  baptized  house,  without  being  baptized  ?  None  can  be  baptized, 
according  to  the  commission,  but  believers :  the  phraseology  about  the 
households  is  perfectly  consistent  with  this,  according  to  daily  use  in  all 
nations :  why  then  conjure  up  a  difficulty  when  not  a  shadow  of  diffi- 
culty exists?  An  infidel,  who  read  the  Scriptures,  just  to  learn  what, 
was  actually  the  practice  on  the  subject  in  the  apostles'  days,  would  not 
find  a  moment's  delay  from  these  households.  He  would  at  once  see 
that  the  word  household  may  extend  to  every  individual  of  the  family, 
or  admit  of  certain  exceptions,  according  to  known  limitations.  The 
limitation  of  the  households  he  would  find  in  the  commission.  He 
would  never  dream  that  the  apostles  would  baptize  any  but  such  as  are 
commanded  to  be  baptized. 

Let  it  be  recollected,  that  we  stand  on  the  defensive  in  this  matter ; 
and  that  it  is  perfectly  sufficient  for  our  purpose,  if  the  term  household 
will  admit  the  limitation  for  which  we  contend.  To  serve  our  oppo- 
nents, it  must  be  proved  that  infants  were  in  the  families.  Even  this  will 
not  serve  them.  They  might  have  been  in  the  households,  yet  not  have 
been  baptized.  But  was  it  even  proved  that  infants  were  baptized,  it 
would  be  a  baptism  different  from  that  of  the  commission,  and  could 
not  stand  in  its  room.  Even  in  such  a  case,  I  would  call  on  all  who 
believe  to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  the  commission. 

"  The  case  of  the  little  children,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  brought  to  Jesus, 
as  narrated,  Matt.  xix.  13 — 15,  entirely  agrees  with  this  view,"  namely, 
that  the  disciples  of  our  Lord  baptized  infants.  There  must  truly  be  a 
great  scarcity  of  proof  when  it  is  sought  in  such  a  passage  as  this.  No 
view  of  which  this  transaction  is  capable,  has  any  bearing  on  the  subject. 
We  might  as  well  seek  a  warrant  for  infant  baptism  in  Magna  Charta, 
or  the  Bill  of  Rights.  Infant  salvation  does  not  imply  infant  baptism. 
Baptism  is  an  exhibition  of  the  faith  of  the  Gospel ;  and  of  course  can- 
not belong  to  any  but  those  who  appear  to  believe  the  Gospel.  But  in- 
fants are  saved  without  the  Gospel.  These  infants  are  not  brought  to 
Jesus  for  baptism,  nor  for  any  ordinance  of  the  Gospel,  but  to  be  blessed 
by  him.  Can  they  not  be  blessed  by  Jesus  without  baptism?  This  pas- 
sage, then,  can  have  no  concern  with  the  subject.  "True,"  says  Mr. 
Ewing,  "  baptism  is  not  mentioned  in  the  passage,  but  our  Saviour's 
condescension,  which  the  passage  does  mention,  and  which  he  so  beau- 
tifully displays  both  to  children  and  to  parents,  is  by  no  means  exclusive 
of  the  baptism  of  the  former,  but  apparently  in  addition  to  it."  Our  Sa- 
inour's  condescension,  here  mentioned,  not  exclusive  of  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants !  What  an  argument!  Does  our  Saviour's  condescension  to 
children,  suppose  that  they  must  have  been  baptized  ?  It  is  a  shame  for 
human  understanding  to  urgre  such  arguments  as  these.  The  children 
taken  up  into  the  arms  of  Christ  could  speak  nothing  more  childish. 
Divine  truths  we  must  receive  like  children,  but  if  we  receive  infant 
baptism  on  the  authority  of  such  arguments,  we  must  receive  it  as  sim- 
pletons. Christ  commands  us  to  be  like  little  children,  but  he  never 
cemmands  us  to  be  idiots.     "  In  malice  be  ye  children,  but  in  under- 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  199 

standing  be  men."  The  Gospel  itself  must  have  evidence  ;  and  we  are 
required  to  believe  nothing  without  evidence.  Is  our  Saviour's  conde- 
scension in  blessing  children  any  evidence  that  they  ought  to  be  baptized? 
This  passage  does  not,  indeed,  exclude  children  from  baptism  ;  and 
many  a  thousand  passages  might  be  quoted,  that  do  not  exclude  infants 
from  baptism.  But  is  every  passage  that  does  not  forbid  infant  baptism, 
a  proof  that  infants  ought  to  be  baptized?  It  seems,  however,  that  this 
passage  does  more  than  not  exclude  infants  from  baptism,  though,  in 
such  a  lack  of  evidence,  that  itself  is  a  great  deal.  The  blessing  is 
apparently  in  addition  to  the  baptism.  Now,  how  this  is  apparent,  is 
what  I  cannot  see  ;  and  though  I  should  wear  out  my  eyes  in  the  search, 
I  am  afraid  I  shall  never  discover  it  here.  The  man  who  can  see 
infant  baptism  here,  may  descry  the  inhabitants  of  the  moon  with  his 
naked  eye. 

Mr.  Ewing  quotes  a  passage  in  his  note,  that  is  subtle  without  pene- 
tration. Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  "  that  is  to  say,"  says  Mr. 
Hallet,  "  the  kingdom  of  God  belongs  to,  or  comprehends  such  infants  as 
these."  No,  Mr.  Hallet,  to  say  this,  is  to  say  what  the  passage  does  not 
say.  It  is  not  said,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  belongs  to  such,  or  compre- 
hends such;  but  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  of  such,  that  is,  such  persons 
constitute  this  kingdom.  If  we  are  not  pleased  with  this  paraphrase, 
Mr.  Hallet  gives  us  another,  which  must  be  abundantly  edifying ;  "  or," 
says  he,  "  if  any  one  would  have  the  words  so  stiffly  rendered,  Such's  is 
the  kingdom  of  God,  like,  Theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  Matt.  v.  3." 
But  the  latter  passage  ought  to  be  translated,  "  of  them  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven."  The  kingdom  of  heaven  consists  of  the  poor  in  spirit,  and 
of  the  poor  in  spirit  only.  There  is  not  another  in  the  kingdom.  The 
meaning  is  not  that  the  poor  in  spirit  will  obtain  heaven  as  their  inherit- 
ance ;  but  that  there  is  none  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  but  the  poor  in 
spirit.  Neither  of  these  passages  imports  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is 
the  property  of  such  persons,  but  that  such  persons  constitute  the  whole 
kingdom.  There  is  not  one  in  heaven  but  the  poor  in  spirit ;  nor  is 
there  one  in  heaven  who  is  not  such  as  the  children.  However,  were  it 
even  supposed  that  the  expression  was,  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven  belongs 
to  such,"  the  import  of  the  term  such  is  not  altered.  Even  such's  is  the 
kingdom,  makes  no  difference.  Every  way  in  which  the  words  can  be 
understood,  imports  that  the  heirs  of  the  kingdom  are  such  as  children — 
not  that  they  are  children.  Observe  the  difference  between  the  expres- 
sion, Matt.  v.  3,  from  the  expression  in  this  place.  In  the  former  it  is 
"  of  them,"  in  the  latter  it  is  "  of  such."  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  of 
the  poor  in  spirit,  and  of  them  only :  but  it  is  not  of  children  only,  but 
of  those  who  are  such  as  children.  They  resemble  children  in  their 
character.  Had  of  them  been  here  used  instead  of  of  such,  it  would  have 
imported  that  none  but  children  are  members  of  Christ's  kingdom ;  it 
would  have  said,  that  all  children  are  members  of  Christ's  kingdom,  and 
that  none  but  children  were  included  in  that  kingdom. 

Mr.  Hallet  says,  that  if  we  understand  the  term  such  to  refer  not  to 
the  infants,  but  to  persons  resembling  them,  it  will  be  impossible  to 
make  out  the  force  of  our  Saviour's  argument.     But  let  what  will  be 


200  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

the  consequence,  this  is  actually  what  our  Saviour  has  said ;  and  nothing 
else  can  the  words  import.  "  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  of  such"  can- 
not possibly  mean  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  of  them.  The  term 
such  does  not  signify  identity — cannot  signify  identity,  but  likeness. 
Besides,  to  understand  it  so,  would  imply,  that  none  but  children  could 
be  saved.  For  if  the  kingdom  of  God  is  of  children,  by  consequence 
none  but  children  are  of  the  kingdom.  I  am  not  bound,  then,  to 
satisfy  Mr.  Hallet  with  a  view  of  the  passage  that  will  make  out  the 
force  of  our  Saviour's  argument.  I  will  show  him  what  concerns  this 
argument,  and  I  will  insist  that  so  far  the  meaning  must  be  what  I  con- 
tend for.  After  ascertaining  what  can  be  definitely  and  certainly  ascer- 
tained, let  us  then  endeavour  to  see  the  force  of  the  argument.  But  to 
see  this  is  not  necessary  to  know  the  other  with  the  utmost  assurance. 

"  According  to  these  men,"  says  Mr.  Hallet,  "  our  Saviour  would  have 
said  the  same  thing,  if  men  had  brought  him  lambs  or  doves."  But  if 
Mr.  Hallet  would  exercise  a  little  discrimination,  he  would  see  a  differ- 
ence. The  things  in  which  the  disciples  of  Christ  are  here  supposed  to 
resemble  children,  are  not  to  be  found  in  lambs  or  doves.  Lambs  and 
doves  are,  to  a  certain  extent,  fit  emblems  of  the  people  of  God ;  but 
for  the  purpose  of  our  Lord  on  this  occasion,  they  were  totally  unsuit- 
able. Children  are  of  the  human  race,  and  therefore  it  is  important  to 
know  whether" they  are  capable  of  being  blessed  by  Christ.  Now,  that 
they  are  capable  of  being  brought  to  Christ,  and  of  being  blessed  by 
him,  is  known  from  Christ's  conduct  towards  them ;  though  it  is  not 
expressed,  nor  necessarily  implied  in  the  term  such.  That  term  implies 
only  that  there  is  a  likeness  between  his  disciples  and  children.  But 
this  likeness  is  a  likeness  in  rational  and  moral  properties.  It  is  a  like- 
ness of  temper,  disposition,  or  character  of  mind.  This  could  not  be 
found  in  lambs  or  doves.  In  mere  harmlessness  doves  may  afford  a  like- 
ness. Therefore  it  is  said,  "  Be  ye  harmless  as  doves."  But  the  moral 
qualities  here  referred  to,  are  not  to  be  found  in  lambs  or  doves ;  these 
are  teachableness,  humility,  &c.  That  this  is  the  reference,  is  clear  from 
the  fact  as  recorded  by  Mark  x.  15.  "  And  they  brought  young  children 
to  him,  that  he  should  touch  them :  and  his  disciples  rebuked  those  that 
brought  them.  But  when  Jesus  saw  it,  he  was  displeased,  and  said  unto 
them,  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not :  for 
of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Whosoever  shall 
not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter  therein. 
Is  it  not  evident,  that  the  point  of  likeness  between  children  and  the 
disciples  of  Christ,  is  in  their  teachableness?  Here  also  it  is  evident, 
that  the  term  such  refers  to  likeness — not  identity.  They  who  receive 
the  kingdom  of  God  must  receive  it  as  children,  but  they  are  not  all  child- 
ren. So,  then,  Mr.  Hallet,  your  lambs  and  your  doves  will  not  suit  this 
passage.  I  will  receive  as  a  little  child  anything  that  the  Lord  teaches; 
but  your  explanation  of  the  term  such,  even  a  child  cannot  receive.  I 
must  renounce  my  understanding  altogether,  before  I  can  admit  such  to 
import  identity,  instead  of  likeness. 

The  same  thing  is  evident  from  Matt,  xviii.  1. — "  At  the  same  time 
came  the  disciples  unto  Jesus,  saying,  Who  is  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  20l 

of  heaven  ?  And  Jesus  called  a  little  child  unto  him,  and  set  him  in 
the  midst  of  them,  and  said,  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Except  ye  be  con- 
verted, and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  Whosoever  therefore  shall  humble  himself  as  this  little 
child,  the  same  is  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  And  whoso 
shall  receive  one  such  little  child  in  my  name,  receiveth  me.  But  whoso 
shall  offend  one  of  these  little  ones  which  believe  in  me,  it  were  better 
for  him  that  a  millstone  were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  that  he  were 
drowned  in  the  depth  of  the  sea."  Here  we  see  that  the  disciples  must 
be  like  children  in  humility.  In  this  sense,  the  disciples  are  children. 
But  in  humility,  lambs  and  doves  could  be  no  figures.  That  they  were 
capable  of  being  blessed,  depends  on  their  being  human  persons. 

"  The  meaning  seems  to  be,"  says  Mr.  Hallet,  "  of  such  kind  of 
infants  as  these  is  the  kingdom  of  God,  that  is,  of  such  infants  as  have 
been  partakers  of  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  of  such  infants  as  have  been 
baptized,  or,  at  least,  circumcised  like  these."  No,  Mr.  Hallet,  this  is 
a  forgery ;  this  is  a  vile  and  wicked  forgery.  Thousands  have  been 
hanged  for  forgery,  who  have  not  made  such  alterations  on.  writings  as 
this  makes  on  the  book  of  God.  There  is  nothing  either  expressed  or 
implied  with  respect  to  the  baptism  or  the  circumcision  of  the  infants 
brought  to  Jesus ;  nor  does  what  our  Lord  says  apply  to  those  children 
more  than  any  other  children.  It  is  not,  Suffer  these  little  baptized  or 
circumcised  children  to  come,  but  suffer  little  children,  any  little  children, 
to  come  to  me.  Does  not  the  parallel  passage,  Mark  x.  15,  apply  to 
children  in  general  ?  It  is  the  temper  of  children  to  which  our  Lord 
gives  his  approbation,  and  the  things  referred  to  are  found  in  all  children. 
Does  not  the  illustration  show  this?  Does  not  Matt,  xviii.  1,  confirm 
this?  Why  does  Mr.  Hallet  look  for  a  reason  of  approbation,  not  only 
not  mentioned  by  Jesus  himself,  but  different  from  that  which  Jesus  has 
mentioned  ?  All  children  possess  what  Jesus  here  approves.  But  while 
these  dispositions  of  children  are  such  as  to  afford  a  proper  figure  to 
represent  the  teachableness,  humility,  &c.  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  there 
is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  they  are  such  as  are  entirely  conformable  to 
the  law  of  God.  There  may  be  something  in  them  that  will  need  the 
atonement  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  while  they  afford  a  likeness  to  the 
character  of  the  disciples.  Indeed,  the  dispositions  of  children  are  not 
considered  here  in  reference  to  God,  but  in  reference  to  men.  Children 
believe  their  parents  implicitly ;  and  they  are  comparatively  unambitious. 
But  they  are  no  more  ready  to  believe  God  than  adults  are.  The  appro- 
bation, therefore,  of  infants  contained  in  our  Lord's  words,  does  not 
imply  that  they  are  teachable  and  humble  in  the  things  of  God.  Our 
Lord  may  approve  of  children  here,  just  as  he  loved  the  rich  young  man 
in  unbelief.  The  young  man  had  lived  in  such  a  manner,  that  in  his 
own  view  he  had  kept  the  law  of  God  from  his  youth  up.  To  live  so, 
was  commendable,  though  he  was  in  error.  Accordingly,  "  Jesus 
beholding  him,  loved  him." 

But  in  whatever  way  the  thing  may  be  explained,  the  ground  of  our 
Lord's  approbation  of  children,  is  their  teachableness,  humility,  &c,  and 
this  as  it  respects  all  children  equally.     If  Mr.   Hallet  will  not  take 

26 


202  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

edification  in  my  way  of  understanding  the  force  of  our  Lord's  argument, 
let  him  look  for  something  to  please  himself.  That  the  term  such  has 
the  reference  for  which  I  contend,  does  not  admit  doubt. 

That  children  are  capable  of  being  brought  to  Christ  and  blessed  by 
him,  is  clearly  established  by  this  passage ;  and  in  this  light  it  is  of 
inestimable  value.  Let  every  Christian,  then,  bring  his  children  to  Christ. 
Let  him  bring  them  to  Christ  in  his  prayers  night  and  day ;  for  their 
salvation  is  beyond  every  earthly  consideration.  Let  him  bring  them  to 
Christ  in  his  word,  and  in  every  thing  in  which  Christ  has  appointed 
them  to  be  brought  to  him.  But  let  not  Christians  think,  that  to  prac- 
tise on  their  infants  a  religious  ordinance  of  human  invention,  is  to  bring 
them  to  Christ,  but  to  increase  their  own  sin.  Had  man  appointed  an 
ordinance  of  imposition  of  hands  on  children,  from  the  authority  of  this 
passage,  it  would  not  have  been  so  strange ;  but  to  argue  that  children 
must  be  baptized,  because  they  may  be  blessed  by  Jesus,  has  no  colour 
of  plausibility.  The  whole  argument  may  be  reduced  to  a  single  sen- 
tence. Children  may  be  blessed  without  being  baptized,  therefore  the 
blessing  of  the  children  by  Jesus  is  no  argument  for  infant  baptism. 

In  short,  whether  our  Lord's  expression  imports  that  the  kingdom  of 
God  consists  of  such,  or  is  the  property  of  such,  the  term  such  must 
necessarily  mean  not  them,  but  persons  like  them — of  such  as  children, 
not  of  children  such  as  these.  The  ground  of  our  Lord's  approbation  of 
children  is  their  resemblance  to  his  disciples  in  certain  characteristics  of 
mind,  which  are  to  be  found  only  in  rational  creatures ;  and  they  are 
permitted  to  come  to  Christ,  because  they  are  capable  of  being  blessed 
by  him. 

The  fact  here  recorded,  however,  instead  of  affording  evidence  for 
infant  baptism,  affords  a  presumption  against  it.  If  infants  were  every 
day  brought  to  be  baptized,  why  did  the  apostles  object  to  their  being 
brought  to  be  blessed?  Mr.  Ewing  has  been  aware  of  this  difficulty, 
and  has  obviated  it  by  a  resource  worthy  of  Ulysses,  "  for  wiles 
renowned."  "  The  disciples  of  Christ,"  says  he,  "  never  thought  of 
forbidding  the  children  to  be  brought  to  them,  which  they  would  be, 
(John  iv.  2,)  in  order  to  be  baptized.  They  only  objected  to  their  being 
brought  also  to  their  Master,  that  he  should  put  his  hands  on  them, 
and  pray."  Now,  is  this  a  thought  that  would  ever  occur  to  any  simple 
mind  in  reading  the  passage?  Is  there  anything  that  intimates  a 
double  purpose  in  bringing  the  children, — first  for  their  baptism  to  the 
apostles,  and  next  to  Jesus  for  his  blessing  ?  What  an  eagle-eye  must 
he  have  that  can  discover  these  things !  But  there  is  here  a  distinction 
never  once  made  in  the  history  of  Jesus, — a  distinction  between  coming 
to  him  and  to  his  attending  disciples.  There  is  no  instance  of  coming  to 
his  apostles,  for  anything  in  his  presence.  Jesus  indeed  did  not  person- 
ally baptize ;  but  he  baptized  by  his  disciples.  All  things  were  done 
by  his  directions,  and  whoever  came  for  baptism  came  to  Jesus,  as  much 
as  for  anything  else.  This  distinction,  however,  if  admitted,  will  not 
serve.  Still,  it  is  asked,  if  children  were  baptized,  why  did  the  apostles 
object  to  their  coming  to  Christ  to  be  blessed  ?  Jesus  vindicates  the 
propriety   of    bringing   children    to   him,  by   arguments    that   equally 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  203 

apply  whether  it  is  to  himself  personally,  or  to  his  apostles  acting  for 
him. 

But  let  this  passage  be  ever  so  finely  wire-drawn,  it  cannot  include 
infant  baptism.  It  applies  to  children  in  general,  and  not  merely  to  the 
children  of  believers ;  and  though  the  children  of  believers  only  were 
included,  they  may  be  brought  to  Christ  for  his  blessing  without  being 
baptized. 

"The  language  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "on 
the  subject  of  baptism,  previously  to  the  history  of  the  propagation  of 
the  Gospel  among  the  Gentiles,  in  which  family  baptism  is  first  men- 
tioned, is  always  equally  comprehensive  with  that  of  the  Gospels,"  Acts 
ii.  38,  39.  On  the  subject  of  baptism !  Does  the  baptism  enforced 
in  the  passage  referred  to,  at  all  include  any  but  those  who  repent  ? 
"  Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent,  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of 
you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall 
receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the  promise  is  unto  you,  and 
to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord 
our  God  shall  call."  Does  this  imply  the  baptism  of  any  but  of  those 
who  repent?  They  who  repent,  and  they  only,  are  to  be  baptized. 
"  Repent,  and  be  baptized."  Can  language  be  more  clear?  Are  they 
not  to  be  baptized  into  the  remission  of  sins?  Does  not  this  show,  that 
in  baptism,  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  are  supposed  with  respect 
to  the  baptized  ?  They  are  not  to  be  baptized,  that  repentance  and 
remission  of  sins  may  follow.  Instead  of  proving  infant  baptism,  this 
passage  proves  that  none  ought  to  be  baptized  but  such  as  repent,  and 
have  their  sins  forgiven.  Is  it  not  expressly  said,  that  all  who  are  thus 
baptized  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost?  The  promise  is 
indeed  said  to  be  to  your  children;  but  is  it  not  also  said,  that  it  is  to 
all  that  are  afar  off?  And  is  it  not,  with  respect  to  both,  confined  to 
those  whom  the  Lord  shall  call?  Children  denote  posterity,  and  not 
merely  infant  children ;  and  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  is  to  them  and  to 
their  posterity,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  only  on  their  repentance. 
It  is  not  said,  that  when  a  man  repents,  his  children  shall  receive  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  whether  they  repent  or  not ;  for  this  is  false. 
His  children,  and  all  that  are  afar  off,  shall  receive  this  gift,  just  as  he 
himself  received  it,  when  they  repent  and  are  baptized.  Does  Mr. 
Ewing  believe,  that  when  a  man  believes  the  Gospel,  his  infants,  and  all 
the  unbelievers  of  his  house,  receive  remission  of  sins,  and  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost?  If  not,  there  is  no  ground  to  give  them  that  baptism 
that  implies  both  remission  of  sins,  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
This  promise  is  to  the  children,  just  as  it  is  to  the  parents;  and  it  is  to 
all  that  are  afar  off,  just  as  it  is  to  parents  and  children,  on  their  repent- 
ance :  and  it  is  actually  communicated  only  to  those  whom  the  Lord 
calls.  Mr.  Ewing  says,  "  that  when  the  apostle  added,  '  To  all  that  are 
afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call,'  the  meaning 
plainly  is,  that  the  promise  which  was  to  the  Jews  first,  and  to  their 
children,  should  be  to  the  Gentiles  also,  and  to  their  children."  No,  Mr. 
Ewing,  this  is  not  the  plain  meaning, — this  is  a  very  forced  and 
unnatural  meaning.     There  is  no  doubt  that  the  promise  here  spoken  of 


204  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

is  to  the  children  of  the  Gentiles,  just  as  it  was  to  the  children  of  the 
Jews ;  that  is,  on  their  repentance,  they  shall  be  made  partakers  of  the 
gift  of  the  Spirit.  But  the  words  referred  to  have  nothing  to  do  with 
this.  The  last  clause  is  a  limitation  of  the  promise  with  respect  to  the 
three  classes  mentioned,  restricting  it  to  such  of  each  as  the  Lord  shall 
call.  This  is  as  clear  as  language  can  make  it ;  and  nothing  but  per- 
verseness  can  mistake  it.  The  promise  is  unto  you  ;  the  promise  is  like- 
wise to  your  children ;  the  promise  is  likewise  to  all  that  are  afar  off. 
But  it  is  to  none  of  any  class,  but  such  as  the  Lord  shall  call.  The 
three  distinct  classes  are  coupled  by  and — you  and  your  children,  and 
all  afar  off.  The  last  clause  is  not  coupled  with  the  rest  by  and,  but 
added  to  the  whole,  as  a  limitation.  And  does  not  the  whole  word  of 
God  confirm  this  view  ?  Do  any  receive  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  but  such 
as  are  called  ?  Do  the  unbelieving  children  and  servants  of  a  believer 
receive  this  gift?  It  is  strange  that  any  Christian  should  contend  for  a 
view  of  this  passage,  so  unfounded  and  so  forced. 

But  if  Mr.  Ewing  will  be  so  perverse  as  to  hold  to  this  view,  it  will 
profit  him  nothing  as  to  infant  baptism.  Whatever  the  promise  here 
may  import,  to  whomsoever  it  is  made,  the  baptism  here  spoken  of,  is  to 
such  only  as  repent.  Besides,  even  according  to  his  own  explanation 
of  the  passage,  he  must  view  all  the  infants  and  unbelievers  of  a  believer's 
house,  as  possessing  the  gift  of  the  Spirit.  This  is  a  species  of  unbe- 
lievers unknown  to  the  word  of  God, — unbelievers  possessing  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

Nothing  but  perverseness,  and  an  obstinate  attachment  to  a  system, 
could  make  our  opponents  rely  on  an  argument  founded  on  the  indefi- 
nite phrase,  your  children.  Does  not  God  promise  to  "  pour  out  his 
Spirit  upon  all  flesh?"  Might  it  not  be  as  plausibly  argued  from  this, 
that  the  Spirit  must  be  given  to  every  individual  of  the  human  race,  as 
that  children  here  must  mean  either  all  children,  or  infant  children? 
Even  if  no  explanatory  and  limiting  phrase  had  been  added,  the  indefi- 
nite term  must  be  limited  by  other  known  truth.  But  our  opponents 
are  so  perverse,  as  to  contend  for  the  unlimited  sense  of  an  indefinite 
term,  after  it  has  been  expressly  limited  in  the  passage  itself  by  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

Dr.  Wardlaw  asks,  How  would  a  Jew  understand  the  term  children 
in  this  passage?  I  answer,  no  man  of  common  sense  can  mistake  its 
meaning,  if  he  takes  the  meaning  from  the  words.  The  apostle  explains 
himself,  so  as  not  to  be  innocently  mistaken  by  either  Jew  or  Gentile. 
Paul  says,  "  Men  and  brethren,  children  of  the  stock  of  Abraham,  and 
whosoever  among  you  feareth  God,  to  you  is  the  word  of  this  salvation 
sent."  Did  not  the  Jews  believe  that  the  blessings  of  the  Messiah's 
kingdom  would  be  confined  to  themselves  ?  How  then,  I  might  ask, 
would  they  understand  this  language?  Would  they  not  have  much 
greater  reason  to  conclude  from  this,  that  Paul  confined  salvation  to  the 
Jews,  than  that  Peter  extended  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  to  the  whole  offspring 
of  believers,  without  any  respect  to  their  faith  ?  He  says  nothing  here 
to  guard  them  from  this  conception.  But  Peter  expressly  limits  the 
term  children,  as  applicable  only  to  those  called  by  the  Lord.     Is  the 


THE     SUBJECTS     OF    BAPTISM.  205 

Gospel  sent  only  to  the  Jews,  and  such  as  feared  God?  Is  it  not  sent 
to  all?  Yet  Paul,  on  this  occasion,  speaks  of  it  as  sent  to  the  stock  of 
Abraham,  and  such  among  them  as  feared  God.  Just  so  Peter  speaks 
of  the  promise  to  them  and  their  children,  but  he  explicitly  limits  the 
blessing  to  those  whom  God  shall  call.  The  most  prejudiced  Jew  could 
not  innocently  mistake  this  language. 

"Are  we,  then,  to  suppose,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  that  this  '  holy  man 
of  God,  speaking  as  he  was  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,'  would,  without 
explanation  or  restriction,"  &c.  Without  explanation  or  restriction ! 
How  can  Dr.  Wardlaw  use  this  language  ?  Is  not  the  last  clause  an  ex- 
press limitation? — "as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call."  But 
even  had  there  been  no  limitation,  it  is  rash  in  Dr.  Wardlaw  to  use  such 
language.  Jesus  himself  used  expressions  that  were  capable  of  being 
misunderstood.  Prejudices  are  no  excuse  for  perverting  the  word  of 
God.  If  the  Jews  took  less  or  more  out  of  the  words  of  the  apostles 
than  they  express,  they  were  blameable. 

Does  Dr.  Wardlaw  believe,  that  when  the  head  of  a  family  receives 
the  Gospel,  all  his  infants  receive  the  Spirit  ?  If  not,  why  does  he  bap- 
tize them  on  account  of  this  promise?  Even  if  they  did  receive  the 
Spirit,  they  are  not  to  be  baptized  by  this  passage,  except  they  repent. 
Does  he  say  that  the  promise  implies  that  they  will  repent  ?  But  the 
promise  is,  that  penitents  shall  receive  the  Spirit,  and  not  that  the  chil- 
dren of  such  shall  repent  in  time  to  come.  Besides,  if  there  was  a  pro- 
mise that  all  the  children  of  all  believers  would  repent,  this  would  not 
entitle  them  to  that  baptism  that  supposes  repentance. 

But  if  your  children  respects  children,  without  limitation  from  the 
concluding  clause,  then  the  promise  is,  that  all  the  children  of  a  believer 
will  receive  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  on  his  believing.  Does  this  imply  that 
all  the  children  of  a  believer  believe  also  at  the  same  time  ?  If  not,  does 
the  promise  import  that  unbelieving  adult  children  will  receive  the  Spirit? 
According  to  our  opponents,  this  promise  secures  the  gift  of  the  Spirit 
to  the  children  of  believers,  as  well  as  to  themselves.  If  so,  except  it  is 
a  false  promise,  such  children  will  receive  the  Spirit.  Unless,  then, 
all  the  children  of  a  believer  receive  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  as  well  as 
himself,  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  cannot  here  be  promised  to  his  children, 
except  they  believe. 

Let  it  be  observed,  that  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  as  respects  his  miracu- 
lous operations,  was  given  to  their  children  with  the  limitation  for  which 
we  contend.  Some  of  them,  indeed,  might  be  children  under  age,  but 
none  of  them  were  unbelieving  children.  They  were  old  enough  to 
prophesy :  "And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  saith  God,  I  will 
pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh :  and  your  sons  and  your  daughters 
shall  prophesy."  This  is  the  promise  to  which  Peter  refers,  and  it  was 
fulfilled,  as  far  as  concerned  miraculous  gifts,  in  the  gift  of  prophecy 
conferred  on  their  sons  and  daughters.  Surely  these  prophesying  sons 
and  daughters,  were  believing  sons  and  daughters, — not  unbelieving  sons 
and  daughters,  nor  infant  sons  and  daughters.  Now,  does  not  the  very 
nature  of  the  gift  promised  to  their  sons  and  daughters,  limit  the  gift  to 
believing  sons  and  daughters?     Nothing  can  be  more  clear.     But  why 


206  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

do  we  waste  time  in  ascertaining  the  nature  and  extent  of  this  promise, 
or  of  any  other  promise  ?  Neither  this  promise,  nor  any  other  promise, 
respects  baptism.  For  argument's  sake,  let  it  be  granted  that  the  Spirit 
is  promised  to  all  the  seed  of  all  believers ;  this  does  not  imply  their 
baptism,  except  it  implies  faith.  The  commission  limits  baptism  to 
Delievers ;  and  the  baptism  that  Peter  here  preaches,  is  limited  to  those 
who  repent.  Whatever  a  wild  fancy  may  extort  from  the  promise  men- 
tioned, it  has  no  concern  with  baptism.  That  the  promise  of  the  gift 
of  the  Spirit  is  limited  to  those  whom  the  Lord  shall  call,  with  respect 
to  them,  their  children,  and  those  afar  off,  is  as  clear  as  the  light  of 
heaven ;  but  let  it  be  extended  as  it  may,  baptism  is  not  attached  to  it. 
The  passage  has  no  possible  bearing  on  the  subject.  Our  opponents 
have  a  popish  perverseness  in  clinging  to  arguments  that  have  a  thou- 
sand and  a  thousand  times  been  shown  to  be  inefficient,  and  which  they 
themselves  represent,  not  as  bearing  the  weight  of  their  conclusion,  but 
as  having  merely  some  favourable  aspect  toward  it.  It  is  a  most  vexa- 
tious thing,  that,  in  the  dispute  about  infant  baptism,  the  greatest  part 
of  the  arguments  brought  to  support  it,  have  no  concern  with  baptism 
at  all.  Is  it  not  evident,  on  the  very  face  of  the  business,  that  infant 
baptism  is  not  in  the  Scriptures,  when  its  advocates  are  obliged  to  shel- 
ter it  under  such  subterfuges?  Had  they  real  evidence,  they  have 
talents  to  exhibit  it.  Had  they  only  one  sound  argument,  they  would 
not  degrade  their  understanding  by  resting  on  arguments  that  have  no 
reference  to  the  subject. 

"  Precisely  in  the  same  strain,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  and  almost  in  the 
same  words,  the  apostle  Paul  asserts  the  interest  which  believers  from 
among  the  Gentiles  have,  in  the  family  promise  made  to  the  Jews;  and 
in  the  same  way  as  Peter  does,  he  connects  this  family  promise  with 
family  baptism  :  Gal.  iii.  13,  14,  26-29."  Family  promise,  family  bap- 
tism! How  are  such  things  to  be  found  in  the  passages  referred  to? 
Is  not  the  blessing  of  Abraham,  that  comes  on  the  Gentiles,  justification 
by  the  faith  of  Abraham,  in  the  seed  of  Abraham?  Is  it  not  such  only 
who  receive  "the  promise  of  the  Spirit?"  Do  any  but  believers  receive 
the  promise  of  the  Spirit?  Is  it  not  here  expressly  said,  that  the  "pro- 
mise of  the  Spirit"  is  "  through  faith  ?"  Is  it  not  expressly  said,  that 
the  blessing  of  Abraham  has  come  on  the  Gentiles,  that  "  we  might 
receive  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  through  faith?"  Can  this  blessing, 
then,  extend  farther  than  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  connected  with  it, 
and  to  be  given  through  it  ?  This  promise  is  confined  to  faith,  which 
clearly  determines  what  the  blessing  is,  and  strongly  confirms  our  view 
of  the  parallel  passage  from  Acts  ii.  39. 

But  Mr.  Ewing  says  that  Paul  here,  as  Peter  does,  connects  this 
promise  with  family  baptism.  No,  Mr.  Ewing,  neither  of  them  connects 
this  promise  with  family  baptism ;  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  foundation 
for  such  an  assertion.  Peter  says  nothing  of  the  baptism  of  the  children 
to  whom  the  promise  is  made.  There  is  no  doubt  that  such  children 
would  be  baptized  as  well  as  their  parents,  because  they  were  believers, 
and  had  received  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  through  faith.  But  this  is  not  said 
in  the  passage,  nor  implied  any  other  way  than  as,  like  their  parents, 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  207 

they  repented,  and  through  faith  received  the  gift  of  the  Spirit.  In 
Gal.  hi.  14,  even  believer  baptism  is  not  spoken  of  as  connected  with  the 
blessing  of  Abraham,  though  it  is  truly  connected  with  it.  In  ver.  26, 
27,  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  import  of  baptism,  but  not  as  connected 
with  ver.  14.  But  where  is  family  baptism  ?  How  can  it  be  extorted 
from  ver.  27 ?  Mr.  Ewing  might  as  well  assert  that  family  baptism  is 
connected  with  the  breach  of  the  sixth  commandment.  Shall  any  man 
suffer  his  understanding  to  be  imposed  on,  by  submitting  to  believe  that 
family  baptism  is  spoken  of  in  such  passages  as  this  ?  Can  a  righteous 
cause  require  the  aid  of  such  support?  Give  me  Scripture  for  infant 
baptism,  and  I  will  receive  it.  Give  me  any  reasoning  that  is  founded 
on  a  basis  of  truth,  and  I  will  weigh  it.  But  I  can  have  no  respect  for 
a  mode  of  reasoning  that  founds  on  nothing,  or  on  untrue  assumption. 
A  man  would  read  himself  blind,  before  he  would  find  anything  like 
family  baptism  in  Gal.  iii.  It  cannot  be  truth  that  requires  learned  and 
ingenious  men  to  adopt  such  a  mode  of  defence.  Mr.  Ewing,  either 
yield,  or  give  us  argument.  Do  not  continue  to  force  and  misrepresent 
the  word  of  God,  to  sanction  the  traditions  of  men.  You  are  flounder- 
ing in  a  quagmire, — every  plunge  to  relieve  yourself,  will  only  sink  you 
more  deeply. 

"  Unless  we  admit,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "  that  infants,  nay,  every  relation, 
both  of  affinity  and  descent,  which  can  be  considered  as  his  property, 
are  interested  in  the  privileges  of  a  believer's  house,  I  see  not  a  satisfac- 
tory meaning  of  1  Cor.  vii.  12 — 14."  This  is  an  astonishing  avowal. 
Mr.  Ewing  believes  that  all  the  unbelieving  children  of  a  believer,  and 
his  unbelieving  wife,  have  from  him  a  right  to  all  the  ordinances  of 
Christ.  Well,  this  is  extravagant,  but  it  is  only  consistent.  Others 
have  founded  an  argument  for  infant  baptism  on  this  passage,  but  they 
inconsistently  refused  to  admit  the  argument  with  respect  to  the  unbe- 
lieving wife.  Mr.  Ewing  has  perceived  that  the  passage  cannot  be 
consistently  quoted  for  the  one  and  not  for  the  other,  and  that  it  applies 
equally  to  the  Lord's  supper  :  he  therefore,  instead  of  giving  up  the 
argument,  as  proving  too  much,  boldly  adopts  all  its  consequences.  The 
unbelieving  wife,  then,  is  to  be  baptized,  and  to  be  admitted  to  all  the 
privileges  of  a  believer's  house.  This  privilege,  it  seems,  is  granted  on 
the  right  of  property.  The  unbelieving  wife  is  to  be  baptized  as  the 
property  of  her  husband.  Slaves  have  a  similar  claim.  To  refute  so 
monstrous  a  position,  is  anything  necessary  but  to  state  it?  Is  this  like 
the  kingdom  of  Christ?  Can  anything  be  more  contrary  to  the  Scripture 
accounts  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper?  Faith  is  necessary  to  entitle 
to  admission  into  a  church ;  faith  is  necessary  to  eat  the  Lord's  supper 
without  condemnation  ;  faith  is  necessary  for  baptism.  How,  then,  can 
an  unbelieving  wife,  or  unbelieving  children,  be  admitted  to  such  privi- 
leges by  this  passage  ?  Can  any  passage  in  the  word  of  God  give  a 
warrant  to  persons  to  eat  and  drink  condemnation  to  themselves?  Can 
any  passage  warrant  the  admission  of  unbelievers  into  a  church  from 
which  the  Lord  has  excluded  them?  Can  any  passage  sanction  the 
baptism  of  unbelievers,  when  all  the  accounts  of  baptism  require  faith? 
Can  any  passage  give  countenance  to  persons  evidently  in  their  sins,  to 


208  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

be  admitted  to  an  ordinance  that  figuratively  exhibits  their  sins  as,  by 
faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  already  washed  away  ?  This  is  an  extrava- 
gance that,  in  a  person  who  has  any  notion  of  Christian  fellowship,  and 
the  nature  of  a  church,  can  never  be  exceeded. 

With  respect  to  the  passage  referred  to,  it  is  usually  and  sufficiently 
explained,  by  an  allusion  to  Ezra  x.  3,  44;  Neh.  xiii.  23,  24.  The 
sanctification  referred  to,  must  be  legitimacy  according  to  the  laic  of  God, 
Such  marriages  were  not  lawful  to  the  Jews,  and  both  the  wives  and 
their  children  were  put  away.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  disciples  to  marry 
in  the  Lord ;  but  even  if  they  transgress  that  law,  or  are  converted  after 
marriage,  they  are  not,  like  the  Jews,  to  put  away  their  wives  and  child- 
ren on  repentance.  The  marriage  is  to  continue,  and  the  relation  is 
sanctified,  just  as  their  food  is  sanctified  or  blessed  to  their  use.  Now 
this  is  an  important,  a  most  important  thing.  As  Jesus  commands  his 
disciples  to  marry  in  the  Lord,  had  no  provision  been  made,  every 
marriage  contrary  to  this,  must  be  given  up  on  repentance,  just  as  forni- 
cation and  adultery ;  and  the  offspring  of  such  marriages  could  not  be 
considered  as  the  children  of  marriage,  according  to  God's  institution. 
It  is  said  in  reply  to  this,  that  even  the  marriages  of  unbelievers  are 
lawful,  and  the  offspring  legitimate.  Certainly — because  they  are  ac- 
cording to  the  law  both  of  God  and  man.  But  as  Christ  commands  his 
people  to  marry  in  the  Lord,  to  marry  otherwise  is  contrary  to  God's 
law.  Neither  such  marriage,  then,  nor  the  offspring  of  it,  would  be 
legitimate  according  to  the  law  of  God,  except  by  this  provision.  The 
marriage  might  be  legitimate  according  to  the  law  of  man,  and  the 
children  legitimate  according  to  the  law  of  man,  but  neither  would  be 
legitimate  according  to  the  law  of  God.  This  provision,  then,  is  most 
bountiful  and  kind.  The  believer,  by  remaining  in  his  marriage  with 
the  unbeliever,  does  not  continue  in  sin,  as  he  would  by  continuing  in 
fornication.  His  marriage  is  sanctified  to  him.  I  can  see  no  difficulty 
in  the  passage ;  but  if  any  will  choose  to  understand  it  otherwise,  let 
them  have  it  their  own  way.  In  no  view  of  it,  can  it  countenance  the 
baptism  of  infants  or  unbelievers.  This  sanctification,  whatever  it  is,  is 
a  marriage  of  sanctification,  and  not  the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit 
through  the  belief  of  the  truth,  which  is  the  only  sanctification  that  en- 
titles to  any  Christian  privilege.  If  such  infants  were  even  as  holy  as  the 
infant  John  the  Baptist,  it  would  not  imply  their  baptism.  They  may 
possess  the  holiness  that  will  fit  them  for  heaven,  without  entitling  them 
to  baptism.     Baptism  is  for  believers,  and  only  for  believers. 

So,  then,  Mr.  Ewing  can  see  no  meaning  in  this  passage,  unless  it  is  a 
warrant  to  give  to  unbelievers  those  ordinances  that  Jesus  has  provided 
for  believers,  and  from  which  he  has  excluded  unbelievers.  If  this 
passage  will  give  a  right  to  introduce  the  unbelieving  wife  and  children 
of  a  believer  into  a  church,  and  to  give  them  the  ordinance  appointed 
for  believers, — if  it  will  enable  such  unbelieving  wife  and  children  to  eat 
the  Lord's  supper  without  eating  and  drinking  condemnation ;  may  it  not 
also  introduce  them  into  heaven  on  the  same  ground  ?  It  is  said,  "  he 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  condemned ;"  but  if  faith  can  be  dispensed 
with  in  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  in  which  it  is  required,  may  it  not  also 


THE   SUBJECTS    OP   BAPTISM.  209 

be  dispensed  with  in  this  threatening?  The  same  explanation  that  will 
baptize  an  unbeliever,  or  admit  him  to  the  Lord's  supper,  will  introduce 
him  into  heaven,  in  defiance  of  the  condemnation  pronounced  against 
him  by  the  Saviour  himself.  What  a  wretched  thing  it  is  for  a  Chris- 
tian to  be  given  up  by  God  to  justify  the  traditions  of  men,  and  to  fight 
against  the  ordinance  of  Christ !  How  wide  is  the  range  of  this  error ! 
How  much  of  the  word  of  God  does  its  defence  oblige  its  advocates  to 
pervert! 

But  this  is  a  new  and  a  strange  ground  of  baptism — baptism  on  the 
ground  of  property !  The  unbelieving  wife  is  baptized,  not,  it  seems,  in 
virtue  of  the  promises  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  but  because  she  is 
the  property  of  her  believing  husband.  The  promises  of  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  are  to  his  seed,  but  the  wife  is  included  only  as  property.  Can 
any  idea  be  more  abhorrent  to  the  nature  of  Christ's  kingdom  ?  Would 
not  this  baptize  the  whole  dominions  of  an  absolute  king?  I  call  upon 
all  Christians  to  reflect  on  this  monstrous  avowal.  Is  it  not  self-evident 
that  the  cause  that  demands  this  defence,  is  not  the  cause  of  God  and 
truth  ?  That  the  baptism  of  the  unbelieving  wife  is  the  necessary  con- 
sequence of  the  argument  for  infant  baptism  brought  from  this  passage, 
Mr.  Ewing  sees  to  be  inevitable ;  and  therefore  avows  the  consequence 
rather  than  forego  the  argument.  It  is,  then,  utterly  vain  for  more  timid 
minds  to  attempt  to  hold  the  argument  and  refuse  the  consequence. 
Mr.  Ewing  being  judge,  the  baptism  of  the  infant  must  be  accompanied 
with  that  of  the  unbelieving  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  adults  of  the 
family.  Let  them,  then,  choose  which  they  will ;  they  must  take  all  or 
nothing. 

Well,  suppose  they  are  all  determined  to  adopt  the  shocking  conse- 
quences avowed  by  Mr.  Ewing,  their  hardihood  will  show  only  their 
disposition — it  will  not  save  their  cause.  This  holiness  of  the  unbe- 
lieving wife  and  children,  is  a  holiness  not  of  the  truth  nor  of  the  Spirit ; 
and  therefore  cannot  entitle  to  any  ordinance  of  Christ's  kingdom.  It 
is  a  holiness  of  marriage,  which  is  an  ordinance  of  God  for  his  people,  in 
common  with  all  men.  It  is  a  holiness  which  is  here  expressly  said  to 
belong  to  unbelievers ;  and  therefore  can  have  nothing  to  do  with  ordi- 
nances that  were  intended  for  believers.  It  is  a  holiness  that  demands 
the  believing  husband  or  wife  to  live  with  the  unbelieving,  not  to  baptize 
such.  The  question  treated  of  is  solely  this.  There  is  no  reference  to 
any  ordinance  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  Why,  then,  should  this  unbe- 
lieving holiness  admit  to  the  ordinance  of  Christ's  kingdom,  more  than 
it  will  admit  to  heaven?  All  the  ordinances  of  Christ  imply,  that  the 
partakers  of  them  have  the  holiness  of  the  truth  by  the  Spirit.  If  this 
can  be  dispensed  with  as  to  an  avowed  unbeliever,  the  declaration  "  with- 
out holiness  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord,"  may  equally  be  dispensed  with 
for  his  salvation.  The  same  reasoning  that  will  baptize  the  unbelieving 
wife,  will  introduce  her  into  heaven  as  an  unbeliever. 

But  why  are  unbelievers  of  this  description  baptized  rather  than  any 
other  unbelievers?  Because,  says  Mr.  Ewing,  salvation  is  come  to  the 
house.  Salvation  come  to  the  house!  But  it  seems  it  has  not  yet  reached 
the  wife ;  and  if  it  had  reached  her,  it  may  not  have  reached  the  children. 

27 


210  THE    SUBJECTS    OP   BAPTISM. 

The  wife  is  here  said  to  be  sanctified  while  an  unbeliever.  Then  salva- 
tion has  not  come  to  her,  except  the  Gospel  is  false,  and  she  can  be 
saved  as  an  unbeliever.  Why,  then,  should  she  be  baptized,  or  receive 
the  Lord's  supper,  which  supposes  that  she  has  been  already  made  a 
partaker  of  salvation?  But  it  may  be  said,  she  will  yet  believe.  I 
reply,  although  this  were  certain,  it  would  be  no  reason  to  give  her  an 
ordinance  that  implies  faith  and  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  through  the 
truth.  This,  however,  is  not  certain,  for  the  reason  by  which  the  hus- 
band is  urged  to  live  with  her  as  an  unbeliever,  is,  not  the  certainty  that 
she  will  yet  believe,  but  the  mere  possibility  of  this.  "  For  what  know- 
est  thou,  O  wife,  whether  thou  shalt  save  thy  husband?  or,  how  knowest 
thou,  O  man,  whether  thou  shalt  save  thy  wife?"  Here  the  mere  possi- 
bility of  the  future  salvation  of  the  unbelieving  husband,  or  wife,  through 
the  means  of  the  other  party,  is  urged  as  a  reason  to  continue  in  the 
marriage  relation.  Nothing  can  be  a  clearer  confutation  of  the  opinion 
of  our  opponents  with  respect  to  the  meaning  of  the  expression,  "  salva- 
tion is  come  to  this  house,"  than  this  passage.  The  utmost  that  the 
apostle  states  as  a  ground  of  not  forsaking  the  unbelieving  partner,  is, 
that  it  may  turn  out  to  the  salvation  of  such ;  there  is  not  a  single  promise 
pleaded.  If  this  is  a  ground  for  baptism,  we  might  baptize  any  person; 
for  we  do  not  know  but  he  may  yet  receive  the  truth.  What  a  monstrous 
prostitution  of  an  ordinance  of  Christ  does  this  vindicate !  It  gives  the 
ordinances  of  Christ  to  avowed  unbelievers,  if  they  will  submit  to  receive 
them !  Am  I  reasoning  with  Mr.  Ewing  ?  Have  I  understood  him  ? 
Will  he  hold  infant  baptism  at  so  immense  a  price?  This  determined 
obstinacy  reminds  one  of  the  desperate  perseverance  of  the  Jews  in  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Is  Mr.  Ewing  resolved  to  overturn  the  whole 
spiritual  nature  of  Christ's  kingdom,  rather  than  surrender  this  fortress 
of  the  man  of  sin? 

But  I  appeal  to  the  common  sense  of  all  my  readers.  If  it  had  been 
the  custom  to  baptize  the  unbelieving  husband  or  wife  on  the  faith  of 
the  believing  partner,  would  there  ever  have  been  a  question  with  re- 
spect to  the  propriety  of  living  with  such  ?  If  the  unbelieving  husband 
or  wife  was  admitted  to  baptism,  would  it  ever  be  thought  that  it  was 
contrary  to  the  holiness  of  marriage  to  dwell  with  such  a  husband  or 
wife?  Would  they  suppose,  that  a  holiness  that  admitted  to  the  ordi- 
nances of  Christ's  kingdom,  was  not  sufficient  for  the  sanctification  of 
marriage? 

Mr.  Ewing  has  had  the  boldness  to  carry  the  principles  that  justify 
infant  baptism  to  their  proper  extent.  But  he  has  done  no  more.  Many 
persons  who  hold  the  argument  from  this  passage,  will  be  shocked  with 
his  sentiment.  It  is  impossible  to  vindicate  the  baptism  of  infants  from 
this  holiness,  without  affording  equal  ground  for  the  baptism  of  the 
unbelieving  husband  or  wife.  Mr.  Ewing  has  the  perspicacity  to  see 
this,  and  he  has  the  hardihood  to  adopt  it.  He  is  just  like  Mr.  Hume 
with  respect  to  the  philosophy  of  his  time.  Mr.  Hume,  in  rearing  a 
system  of  universal  scepticism,  did  no  more  than  carry  the  acknowledged 
principles  of  philosophy  to  their  just  consequences.  Granting  him  his 
first  principles,  which  were  universally  taken  for  granted,  he,  with  the 


THE    SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM.  211 

greatest  ease,  overturned  heaven  and  earth,  matter  and  spirit.  He 
shocked  the  world  by  his  conclusions ;  and  thus  led,  by  an  examination 
of  his  first  principles,  to  the  overthrow  of  his  doctrine.  Specious  or 
popular  error  will  never  be  abandoned,  till  it  is  driven  into  extravagance. 
I  hope  Christians,  who  have  any  regard  for  the  ordinances  of  Christ's 
house,  and  the  spirituality  of  his  kingdom,  will  be  led  to  examine,  with 
more  attention,  the  foundations  of  a  practice  that  requires  such  a  justifi- 
cation. If  the  whole  ordinances  of  the  house  of  God  must  be  profaned; 
if  the  spiritual  fabric  of  his  kingdom  must  be  pulled  down,  in  order  to 
make  room  for  infant  baptism,  surely  enlightened  Christians  may  be 
expected  to  renounce  it.  What  an  awful  sentiment  has  Mr.  Ewing 
avowed !  Baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  may — must  be  given  to  a  professed  worshipper  of  Jupiter, 
Neptune,  and  Apollo,  with  the  thousands  of  inferior  gods,  if  the  person 
is  the  husband,  or  the  wife,  or  the  slave  of  a  believer,  and  will  condescend 
to  submit  to  this  Christian  institzition  !!!  To  refute  this,  is  it  not  enough 
to  state  it  ? 

Section  II. — Having  considered  the  evidence  arising  from  the  com- 
mission given  to  the  apostles,  and  from  the  practice  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament,  I  shall  now  exhibit  the  evidence  that  is  derived  from  such 
allusions  to  baptism,  as  may  ascertain  who  were  its  subjects.  In 
general,  it  is  quite  apparent  that  baptism  is  not  only  a  figure  of  the 
washing  away  of  sin,  but  that  it  is  always  supposed  that  the  sins  of 
those  who  are  baptized  are  already  washed  away.  Now  this  can  be 
supposed  of  none  but  believers.  Infants  dying  in  infancy,  if  saved, 
have  their  sins  washed  away.  But  millions  of  persons  who  have  their 
sins  washed  away,  have  not  had  them  washed  away  in  infancy.  With 
respect  to  such,  then,  baptism,  that  supposes  sins  already  washed  away, 
could  have  no  proper  application  in  their  infancy. 

From  John  iii.  5,  we  see  that  baptism  is  a  figure  of  regeneration. 
They  who  are  baptized  are  represented  as  born  again.  Now  this  is 
peculiar  to  believers.  Even  if  there  was  a  certainty  that  an  infant 
would  believe  in  future  time,  it  would  be  no  ground  to  baptize  it.  The 
ordinance  exhibits  the  baptized  person  as  at  the  time  born  again. 

The  same  thing  appears  from  Titus  iii.  5.  "  Not  by  works  of  right- 
eousness which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us, 
by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Here 
baptism  is  called  the  bath  or  laver  of  regeneration.  In  the  figure,  it  is 
the  place  of  birth.  The  baptized  person  is  represented  as  born  in  the 
ordinance,  and  is  supposed  to  be  already  born,  or  renewed  by  the  Spirit. 
Now,  this  cannot  belong  to  infants  ;  because  infants  dying  in  infancy  are 
not  born  of  the  truth,  although  they  are  saved  by  the  blood  of  Christ ; 
and  if  they  were,  how  can  they  be  known  ?  The  multitude  of  saved 
adults  were  not  born  again  in  infancy.  To  say  that  it  may  represent 
that  infants  will  be  born  again,  is  absurd,  for  the  ordinance  supposes 
that  they  are  born  again.  Besides,  it  is  not  certain  that  they  will  be 
born  again ;  their  new  birth  is  not  a  matter  of  course.  It  would  not 
be  the  same  ordinance,  if,  when  applied  to  infants,  it  represented  what 


212  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

might  take  place  in  futurity,  and  when  applied  to  adults,  it  represented 
what  had  taken  place.  None  are  represented  in  Scripture  as  born  again, 
except  through  the  belief  of  the  truth.  "Being  born  again,  not  of 
corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of  God,  which  liveth 
and  abideth  for  ever.  1  Peter  i.  23. 

Agreeably  to  this  Ananias  says  to  Paul,  "And  now,  why  tarriest 
thou  ?  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord."  Acts  xxii.  16.  Here  we  see  baptism  figuratively 
washes  away  sins,  and  supposes  that  they  are  previously  truly  washed 
away.  Could  our  opponents  say  to  the  parents  of  the  infant  about  to  be 
baptized,  "Arise,  and  wash  away  the  sins  of  thy  infant?"  The  figure 
supposes  that  they  are  washed  away,  not  that  they  may,  in  future  time, 
be  washed  away. 

Rom.  vi.  3 — 5,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  explain  baptism  in  a  sense  that  suits 
believers  only.  They  who  are  baptized,  are  baptized  into  Christ's 
death,  as  dying  with  him,  and  as  rising  with  him  to  a  new  life. 
They  are  viewed  as  already  risen  with  him  through  faith.  Can  any 
thing  be  more  express  than  this?  Are  infants  risen  with  Christ  through 
faith  of  the  operation  of  God  ?  If  not,  they  are  not  among  the  number 
of  those  that  were  baptized. 

In  like  manner,  1  Cor.  xv.  29,  all  who  are  baptized  are  supposed,  by 
submitting  to  that  ordinance,  to  profess  faith  in  the  resurrection.  Of 
this  faith,  infants  are  incapable. 

In  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  they  who  are  baptized  are  represented  as  having  a 
good  conscience,  which  cannot  apply  to  infants. 

In  Heb.  x.  22,  23,  baptism  is  supposed  to  proceed  on  a  confession  of 
the  faith  or  hope  of  the  baptized  persons,  which  being  confessed  in  bap- 
tism, they  are  exhorted  to  hold  fast  without  wavering. 

That  the  external  washing,  or  figurative  bath,  belongs  only  to  believers, 
is  seen  in  Ephes.  v.  26 :  "  That  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  by 
the  washing  of  tvater,  or  the  laver  of  the  water,  by  the  word."  Here  the 
bath  of  baptism  is  only  the  figure  of  that  which  is  done  by  the  word. 
Believers  are  washed  in  baptism  only  in  figure,  but  the  reality  of  this 
figure  they  have  had  in  the  belief  of  the  word.  Infants  are  not  sancti- 
fied by  the  word,  and  therefore  have  nothing  to  do  with  that  laver  of 
water  that  is  appointed  for  those  who  receive  the  word,  to  their  salvation 
and  sanctification. 

In  1  Cor.  vi.  11,  they  who  were  baptized  are  supposed  to  be  washed, 
— to  be  sanctified  and  justified,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by 
the  Spirit  of  our  God. 

We  learn  from  Ephes.  iv.  5,  that  there  is  but  one  baptism.  Now,  as 
the  baptism  of  the  commission  cannot  possibly  extend  to  infants,  if  there 
is  such  a  thing  as  infant  baptism,  there  must  be  two  baptisms.  If,  then, 
there  is  but  one  baptism,  there  can  be  no  infant  baptism. 

In  1  Cor.  xii.  13,  it  is  taken  for  granted,  all  who  are  baptized  belong 
to  the  body  of  Christ.  "  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one 
body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free  ;  and 
have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit."  They  who  are  baptized 
are  supposed  already  to  belong  to  the  body  of  Christ ;  and  for  this  reason 
they  are  baptized  into  it.    They  are,  by  baptism,  externally  united  to 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  213 

that  body,  to  which  they  are  internally  united  by  faith.  None  are  here 
supposed  to  be  baptized  upon  the  expectation,  or  probability,  or  possi- 
bility, that  they  may  yet  belong  to  that  body.  They  are  baptized  into 
the  body. 

Nothing  can  be  more  express  to  this  purpose  than  Gal.  iii.  27,  "  For 
as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ." 
Here,  baptism  is  represented  as  implying  a  putting  on  of  Christ :  surely 
this  is  peculiar  to  believers.     Infants  cannot  put  on  Christ.     Dr.  Ward- 
law  thinks  he  has  entirely  overturned  this  argument,  but  his  reply  to  it 
has  no  just  application.     He  quotes  Gal.  v.  2-6,  as  a  parallel  to  the 
above  phraseology.     "  Behold,  I  Paul  say  unto  you,  that  if  ye  be  cir- 
cumcised, Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing.     For  I  testify  again  to  every 
man  that  is  circumcised,  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law.  Christ 
is  become  of  no  effect  unto  you,  whosoever  of  you  are  justified  by  the 
law ;  ye  are  fallen  from  grace."     "  In  the  27th  verse  of  the  third  chap- 
ter of  the  same  epistle,  the  apostle  says,  '  For  as  many  of  you  as  have 
been  baptized  unto  Jesus  Christ,  (or,  '  ye  whosoever  have  been  bap- 
tized unto  Jesus  Christ,')  have  put  on  Christ.'     From  this  expression," 
says  he,  "  it  has  been  very  confidently  argued,  that  adults  only  were  bap- 
tized, because  of  '  putting  on  Christ,'  adults  only  were  capable.     Now, 
let  the  principle  of  interpretation,  or  of  inference,  be  applied  to  the 
passage  quoted  from  the  fiftli  chapter.     It  is  an  address  to  adults  :  it 
expresses  things  of  which  adults  only  iccre  capable.     Are  we,  then,  to 
infer  from  this,  that  adults  only  were  circumcised?  We  certainly  ought, 
on  the  same  principle  on  which  we  infer  from  the  other,  that  adults  alone 
were  baptized.     There  is  precisely  the  same  ground  in  the  former  case 
as  there  is  in  the  latter."     No,  Dr.  Wardlaw,  the  cases,  instead  of  being 
parallel,  are  entirely  dissimilar.     In  the  one  case,  the  apostle  states  the 
import  of  an  ordinance  of  God ;  in  the  other  he  is  not  stating  the  import 
of  an  ordinance  of  God.     He  does  not  allege  that  their  submission  to 
baptism  was  an  evidence  of  putting  on  Christ,  for  it  is  not  such;  but  it 
is  a  figure  of  putting  on  Christ.   Some  of  them  might  not  turn  out  to  be 
real  believers,  but  in  their  baptism  they  were  taken  for  such ;  and  with- 
out this,  baptism  had  to  them  no  application.     It  is  taken  for  granted 
that  all  who  are  baptized  have  put  on  Christ.     But  it  is  not  from  the 
import  of  circumcision,  that  the  apostle  alleges  that  they  were  unbeliev- 
ers who  submitted  to  it.     Their  receiving  of  circumcision,  as  necessary 
to  salvation,  was  evidence  that  they  were  not  in  the  faith,  Gal.  v.  3.  This 
was  decided  evidence  with  respect  to  every  one  of  them  individually, 
that  he  was  yet  in  his  sins.     On  the  other  hand,  their  baptism  was  no 
evidence  of  their  being  in  the  faith ;  but  this  was  its  import.     No  two 
cases,  then,  can  be  more  dissimilar  than  the  two  which  Dr.  Wardlaw 
here  pronounces  to  be  precisely  similar.     Let  Dr.  Wardlaw  bring  an 
example  of  similar  phraseology,  with  respect  to  the  import  of  any  ordi- 
nance of  God,  which  yet  is  divinely  appointed  for  those  who  are  not 
supposed  to  "  put  on  Christ,"  and  he  will  do  something  to  his  purpose. 
Were  the  Jews  ever  addressed  with  such  language  as  this?     Was  it 
ever  said,  "  whosoever  of  you  have  been  circumcised  in  your  flesh,  have 
been  renewed  in  your  hearts  by  the  Spirit  of  God?"    No,  this  could  not 
have  been  said ;  for  circumcision  never  imported  this. 


214  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

Section  III. — The  Abrahamic  Covenant. — As  infant  baptism  can- 
not be  found  in  the  New  Testament,  its  advocates  have  endeavoured  to 
find  a  cover  for  it  in  the  Old.  They  think  they  have  discovered  this  in 
the  covenant  that  God  made  with  Abraham.  Of  course,  that  covenant 
has  been  much  discussed  on  this  subject,  and  variously  explained,  to 
suit  the  respective  sentiments  of  the  different  parties.  It  is  lamentable, 
that  the  people  of  God  should  allow  their  sentiments  on  one  subject,  to 
influence  their  decisions,  so  as  to  perplex  the  plainest  things.  Nothing 
but  the  supposed  connexion  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  with  the  sub- 
ject of  infant  baptism,  could  produce  such  a  diversity  of  opinion  in  ex- 
plaining that  covenant.  I  have  read  much  that  I  cannot  approve,  on  both 
sides  of  this  question;  and  I  cannot  but  think,  that,  in  many  instances, 
both  parties  have  been  more  guided  by  their  view  of  its  bearing  on  the 
subject  of  baptism,  than  by  an  intense  desire  to  ascertain  the  import  of 
the  documents  before  them.  As  I  am  convinced  that  truth  must  be 
consistent  with  itself,  I  have  no  fear  that  any  real  evidence  can  ever  be 
deduced  from  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  in  opposition  to  what  the  Lord 
has  so  plainly  established  in  the  New  Testament.  The  covenant  with 
Abraham,  I  am  convinced,  is,  like  every  other  part  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, full  of  instruction  to  us,  and  is  worthy  of  the  most  careful  study. 
But  as  no  view  of  this  subject  can  have  the  most  distant  bearing  on 
infant  baptism,  I  do  not  think  it  necessary  fully  to  examine  that  cove- 
nant. 

I  entirely  agree  with  those  who  consider  this  covenant  as  having  a 
letter  and  a  spirit.  For  the  accomplishment  of  the  grand  promise,  that 
all  nations  should  be  blessed  in  Abraham,  three  promises  were  given  to 
him.  First,  a  numerous  posterity,  which  was  fulfilled  in  the  letter,  in 
the  nation  of  Israel.  It  was  fulfilled  in  the  spirit,  by  the  Divine  consti- 
tution, that  makes  all  believers  the  children  of  Abraham.  The  unbe- 
lieving Jews  were  Abraham's  children  as  to  the  flesh,  yet  there  is  a 
sense  in  which  Jesus  denies  that  they  were  the  children  of  Abraham. 
The  second  promise  was  to  be  a  God  to  him  and  his  seed,  which  was 
fulfilled  in  the  letter  by  his  protection  of  Israel  in  Egypt, — his  delivering 
of  them  from  bondage, — his  taking  them  into  covenant  at  Sinai, — and 
all  his  subsequent  dealings  with  them  in  their  generations,  till  they 
were  cast  off  by  their  rejection  of  Christ.  This  promise  is  fulfilled  in 
the  spirit,  by  God's  being  a  God  to  all  believers,  and  to  them  alone, 
Rom.  iv.  11,  12,  in  a  higher  sense  than  he  was  to  Israel,  Jer.  xxxi.  33. 
The  third  promise  was  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  fulfilled  in  the  letter  to 
Israel,  and  in  the  spirit  fulfilled  to  the  true  Israel  in  the  possession  of 
the  heavenly  inheritance.  In  accordance  with  this  double  sense  of  the 
promises  of  this  covenant,  the  kingdom  of  God  in  Israel,  with  its  officers, 
laws,  worship,  &c,  is  a  visible  model  of  the  invisible  kingdom  of  Christ. 
The  typical  ordinances,  which  exhibited  the  truths  of  the  Gospel  in 
figure,  form  one  of  the  most  conclusive  evidences  of  Christianity ;  and 
present  spiritual  things  to  the  mind  in  so  definite  and  striking  a  manner, 
that  they  add  the  greatest  lustre  to  the  doctrines  of  grace.  What  a 
striking  emblem  of  the  incarnation  have  we  in  God's  dwelling  in  the 
tabernacle  and  temple !  How  clearly  do  we  see  substitution  and  impu- 
tation in  the  laying  on  of  hands  on  the  victim !     How  blind  must  they 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  215 

be,  who  do  not  see  the  atonement  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  in  the  sacrifices 
of  Israel ! 

This  appears  to  me  to  be  the  only  view  of  the  covenant  of  Abraham, 
that  will  suit  every  thing  said  of  it  in  the  word  of  God.  That  it  has  a 
letter  and  a  spirit  is  true,  and  analogous  to  every  part  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. But  as  long  as  Christians  look  at  this  covenant,  on  the  one  side 
to  make  it  a  foundation  for  a  New  Testament  ordinance,  and,  on  the 
other,  to  make  it  as  unfit  as  possible  for  such  a  purpose,  it  need  not  be 
expected  that  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  will  be  understood.  It  will  be  easy 
for  a  little  perverse  ingenuity  on  either  side,  to  set  it  in  a  light  that  will 
perplex  the  simple.  If  any  one  can  say  with  the  Psalmist,  "  I  opened 
my  mouth,  and  panted ;  for  I  longed  for  thy  commandments,"  let  him 
come  with  me  beyond  the  cloud  that  has  been  raised  around  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant,  and  try  what  we  can  discover  in  the  sunshine  on  the 
other  side.  Let  them  make  what  they  will  of  that  covenant,  I  maintain 
that  it  affords  no  foundation  for  infant  baptism.  They  tell  us  that  the 
covenant  of  Abraham  was  the  new  covenant.  Now,  for  argument's 
sake,  let  it  be  the  new  covenant,  and  I  deny  the  result  that  they  wish 
to  draw.  Infants  are  not  saved  by  the  new  covenant,  and  there- 
fore they  cannot  be  connected  with  it,  in  any  view  that  represents  them 
as  interested  in  it.  It  is  a  vulgar  mistake  of  theologians  to  consider, 
that  if  infants  are  saved,  they  must  be  saved  by  the  new  covenant. 
There  is  no  such  doctrine  exhibited  in  any  part  of  the  book  of  God. 
Infants  must  be  saved  as  sinners,  and  saved  through  the  blood  of  Christ  ; 
but  there  was  no  necessity  to  give  a  covenant  to  man  to  ratify  this. 
Whether  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  saved,  or  only  some  infants, 
they  are  saved  just  as  adults,  as  to  the  price  of  redemption,  and  as  to  the 
sanctification  of  their  nature.  But  they  are  not  saved  as  adults,  by  the 
truth  believed.  That  sacrifice  which  is  the  ground  of  the  new  covenant, 
is  the  salvation  of  saved  infants ;  but  there  is  no  part  of  the  word  of 
God,  that  intimates  that  it  is  through  faith  in  that  sacrifice.  God,  who 
applies  that  sacrifice  to  adults  only  through  faith,  can  apply  it  to  dying 
infants  without  faith, — for  faith  has  no  merit  more  than  works.  It  is 
only  the  Divinely  appointed  medium.  Theologians  have  manifested  a 
great  want  of  discrimination  on  this  subject.  That  necessity  of  faith 
which  the  Scriptures  apply  to  adults,  and  adults  only,  theologians  have 
applied  to  infants,  without  warrant,  as  if  God  was  bound  to  proceed 
towards  them  as  he  does  towards  adults.  Therefore  it  is  that,  even  in 
Dr.  Dwight,  we  find  that  frightful  fanaticism,  that  speaks  of  the  infant 
faith  of  John  the  Baptist;  as  if  God  could  not  save  or  sanctify  an  infant 
without  faith,  because  none  who  hear  the  Gospel  can  be  sanctified  with- 
out faith.  Surely  it  ought  to  make  every  sober  mind  suspect  that  there 
must  be  something  wrong  at  the  bottom  of  these  views,  that  must  con- 
sider an  unconscious  infant  as  possessing  faith. 

But  this  view  not  only  leads  to  absurdity,  it  takes  its  origin  in  that 
principle  of  self-righteousness  that  is  so  prone,  even  in  Christians,  to 
work  itself  into  every  subject  of  Divine  revelation  of  which  they  are 
ignorant.  It  supposes  that  it  is  so  necessary  for  man  to  do  something 
as  to  his  acceptance  with  God,  that  even  the  infant  who  cannot  comply 


216  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

with  the  terms  itself,  must  do  it  by  its  substitute.  It  has  its  name  put 
into  the  covenant,  or  put  into  the  Gospel  grant.  And  who  is  he  that 
will  undertake  to  put  a  name  into  God's  covenant?  What  antichrist 
will  dare  to  take  the  throne  of  Jesus,  and  put  a  name  into  the  Gospel 
grant?  Even  the  most  pious  men,  when  ignorant  of  God's  ordinances, 
will  attempt  to  establish  the  ordinances  of  man.  Even  the  pious  Henry 
speaks  in  this  antichristian  style.  So  true  it  is,  that  we  cannot  oppose 
any  part  of  the  Divine  counsel,  without  loss.  Every  error  is  in  some 
way  injurious  to  the  grand  truth  of  the  Gospel  itself. 

Theologians,  justly  considering  that  infants  have  sinned  in  Adam, 
have  also  justly  considered  that  they  must  be  washed  in  the  blood  of 
the  Saviour.  But  they  have,  without  warrant,  and  without  discrimina- 
tion, considered  that  they  must  be  saved  by  that  covenant  that  was 
given  for  the  salvation  of  believers.  But  they  can  have  nothing  to  do 
with  a  covenant  that  requires  faith  for  salvation.  Were  it  true  that 
infants  could  not  be  saved  but  by  this  covenant,  none  of  them  would  be 
saved.  This  would  denounce  to  condemnation  all  who  die  before  the 
belief  of  the  Gospel.  The  new  covenant  knows  nothing  of  any  salva- 
tion but  through  faith.  "  He  that  believeth,  shall  be  saved ;  he  that 
believeth  not,  shall  be  damned,"  is  the  testimony  from  which  it  never 
for  a  moment  swerves.  Such  a  covenant  cannot  save  an  infant,  who 
believes  nothing.  But  there  is  a  covenant  in  which  they  are  included, 
and  which  will  save  as  many  of  them  as  are  included  in  it, — the  cove- 
nant of  redemption  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  in  which  he 
engaged  to  lay  down  his  life  as  a  ransom  for  his  chosen,  whether  infants 
or  adults.  Though  infants  are  not  saved  by  faith,  they  can  join  in  the 
song  of  the  Lamb  in  heaven,  "  Thou  wast  slain,  and  hast  redeemed  us 
to  God  by  thy  blood,  out  of  every  kindred,  and  tongue,  and  people,  and 
nation." 

But  let  us  ask  Jeremiah,  xxxi.  31, — let  us  ask  the  apostle  Paul, 
Heb.  viii.  10,  11,  who  they  are  that  are  included  in  the  new  covenant? 
"  For  this  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel  after 
those  days,  saith  the  Lord ;  I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  mind,  and 
write  them  in  their  hearts."  "  And  they  shall  not  teach  every  one  his 
neighbour,  and  every  man  his  brother,  saying,  Know  the  Lord :  for  all 
shall  know  me,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest."  Here  we  see  that  all 
who  are  included  in  this  covenant,  have  the  laws  of  God  put  into  their 
mind,  and  written  on  their  heart,  by  himself.  Can  this  be  said  of 
infants?  The  subjects  of  this  covenant  know  the  Lord — all  of  them — 
even  the  least  of  them.  This  surely  cannot  include  infants,  who  know 
nothing.  Is  there  not  a  necessity  to  teach  children,  as  soon  as  they  are 
capable  of  instruction,  to  know  the  Lord  ?  Are  any  children  found  who 
need  not  this  instruction  ?  If  not,  there  are  no  infants  in  this  covenant. 
The  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God  was  as  necessary  for  infants  as  for 
adults.  But  had  it  pleased  God  that  all  the  elect  should  die  in  infancy, 
there  would  have  been  no  need  of  the  new  covenant  at  all.  The 
Gospel  would  then  have  never  been  preached.  To  keep  in  mind  this 
distinction,  would  preserve  theologians  free  from  many  of  their  embar- 
rassments.    The  necessity  of  faith,  and  the  necessity  of  atonement,  are 


THE    SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM.  217 

not  of  the  same  kind.  Ignorance  of  this  has  led  to  the  most  frantic 
extravagance.  In  order  to  save  infants,  some  have  been  led  to  assert 
that  they  have  faith ;  others,  that  they  have  imputative  faith ;  and  others, 
that  they  have  habitual  faith.  Now,  all  these  opinions  are  grounded  on 
ignorance  of  the  difference  between  the  necessity  of  faith,  and  the 
necessity  of  redemption  or  atonement.  The  infant  faith  of  Luther, 
the  imputative  infant  faith  of  Calvin,  and  the  habitual  infant  faith  of  the 
church  of  Rome,  have  a  common  foundation  in  ignorance  of  this  dis- 
tinction, and  are  all  opposed  to  sound  views  of  the  truth.  Even  Dr. 
Williams,  an  English  Independent,  and  a  writer  of  celebrity,  makes  the 
most  doleful  lamentation  about  cutting  off  infants  from  the  church  mili- 
tant, by  refusing  to  include  them  in  the  commission  of  the  apostles. 
Militant  infants !  What  an  idea!  Might  we  not  as  well  attempt  to 
cure  Bedlam  with  syllogisms,  as  reason  with  persons  who  speak  of  believ- 
ing militant  infants  ?  If  any  general  should  talk  of  raising  an  army  of 
infants  to  oppose  an  invading  enemy,  he  would  at  once  be  deemed  insane, 
and  his  sovereign  would  not  one  moment  longer  entrust  him  to  com- 
mand— no,  not  though  he  were  the  Duke  of  Wellington.  But  when 
doctors  of  divinity  speak  like  madmen,  it  is  only  the  depth  of  their 
theological  learning,  and  they  are  only  the  more  admired. 

2.  My  second  observation  is,  that  the  infants  even  of  Abraham  him- 
self, were  not  saved,  when  they  died  in  infancy,  by  Abraham's  covenant. 
He  was  not  the  spiritual  father  of  his  own  infant  seed.  It  is  a  common 
opinion,  that  Abraham,  by  that  covenant,  was  constituted  the  head  of 
all  the  redeemed.  But  this  is  a  grand  mistake.  He  was  the  head 
of  believers  only.  By  that  covenant  he  was  constituted  the  father  of 
believers  in  all  ages,  but  of  none  else.  He  was  made  the  father  of  all 
them  that  believe  out  of  every  nation :  and  to  his  own  descendants  he 
was  "  the  father  of  circumcision  to  them  who  are  not  of  the  circumcision 
only,  but  who  also  walk  in  the  steps  of  that  faith"  which  Abraham  had. 
So  then  he  was  the  spiritual  father  of  none  among  his  own  descendants, 
but  of  such  as  believed.  There  was,  then,  by  this  covenant,  no  spiritual 
connexion  between  Abraham  and  his  infant  seed.  His  justification  was 
not  the  pattern  of  theirs.  He  was  justified  by  faith :  his  infants  dying 
in  infancy  were  not  justified  by  faith.  They  were  saved,  as  all  saved 
infants  were  saved  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  and  will  be  to  the 
end  of  the  world,  through  the  bruising  of  the  heel  of  the  seed  of  the 
woman. 

Dr.  Wardlaw  calls  on  his  opponents  to  show  where  the  spiritual 
connexion  between  believers  and  their  infant  seed,  established  by  this 
covenant,  is  cut  off.     I  cut  it  off  by  showing  that  it  never  existed. 

Abraham  himself  had  no  such  spiritual  connexion  with  his  infant 
seed.  The  covenant  with  Abraham  made  no  new  relation  between  him 
and  his  infant  seed ;  and  much  less  did  it  constitute  a  spiritual  relation 
between  every  believer  and  his  infant  seed. 

But  even  had  this  covenant  constituted  a  new  relation  between  Abra- 
ham and  his  infant  seed,  Dr.  Wardlaw  is  wrong  in  throwing  the  burden 
of  proof  on  his  opponents,  with  respect  to  the  supposed  similar  relation 
between  every  believer  and  his  infant  seed.     There  might  have  been 

28 


218  THE     SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

such  a  connexion  in  the  case  of  Abraham  and  his  seed,  without  involv- 
ing the  necessity  of  a  similar  connexion  between  other  believers  and 
their  seed.  Dr.  Wardlaw  contends,  that  if  such  a  connexion  existed  in 
the  case  of  Abraham,  it  lies  on  his  opponents  to  prove  that  it  was  dis- 
continued. But  surely  it  is  a  self-evident  truth,  that  the  burden  of 
proof  lies  on  him  who  needs  as  an  argument  the  thing  to  be  proved ; 
for  if  nothing  is  proved  about  it  on  either  side,  it  cannot  be  used  as  an 
argument.  Before  anything  can  be  legitimately  built  on  it,  it  must  be 
proved,  if  it  is  not  self-evident.  To  prove  such  a  connexion,  then, 
between  Abraham  and  his  seed  by  this  covenant,  is  not  proof  that  such 
a  connexion  exists  between  other  believers  and  their  seed.  The  latter 
must  be  proved  before  it  is  admitted.  Granting,  then,  that  there  was  a 
spiritual  connexion  constituted  between  Abraham  and  his  infant  seed  by 
this  covenant,  that  such  a  connexion  exists  between  every  believer  and 
his  infant  seed,  is  a  thing  that  must  be  proved.  This  proof  is  some- 
times rested  on  Gal.  iii.,  where  the  blessing  of  Abraham  is  said  to  come 
on  the  Gentiles.  But  that  hlessing  is  not  the  blessing  of  a  spiritual  con- 
nexion between  believers  and  their  seed,  but  the  blessing  of  having  faith 
counted  for  righteousness,  or  of  being  justified  as  Abraham  was  justified. 
What  that  blessing  is,  we  see  in  verse  9 :  "So  then  they  which  be  of 
faith,  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham."  None,  then,  are  blessed  with 
faithful  Abraham,  but  "  they  which  be  of  faith."  In  verse  7,  it  is  said, 
"Know  ye,  therefore,  that  they  which  are  of  faith,  the  same  are  the 
children  of  Abraham."  Abraham,  then,  has  no  children  spiritually,  but 
such  as  are  of  faith.  Between  him  and  his  infants  there  was  no  spiritual 
connexion. 

3.  My  third  observation  is,  that  the  covenant  of  Abraham  is  not 
made  with  all  believers.  Indeed,  it  is  strange  there  should  be  a  neces- 
sity to  make  such  an  observation.  The  Abrahamic  covenant  is  so 
evidently  peculiar,  that  it  is  the  most  extravagant  absurdity  to  suppose 
that  it  is  made  with  every  believer  in  every  age.  Let  us  take  a  look 
at  this  covenant,  as  it  is  recorded  in  Gen.  xii.  1 :  "  Now  the  Lord 
had  said  unto  Abram,  Get  thee  out  of  thy  country,  and  from  thy 
kindred,  and  from  thy  father's  house,  unto  a  land  that  I  will  show 
thee.  And  I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  nation,  and  I  will  bless  thee, 
and  make  thy  name  great ;  and  thou  shalt  be  a  blessing.  And  I 
will  bless  them  that  bless  thee,  and  curse  him  that  curseth  thee  :  and 
in  thee  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  Is  it  not  abso- 
lute lunacy  to  suppose,  that  this  covenant  is  made  with  all  believers  ? 
Has  God  promised  to  every  believer  that  he  will  make  of  him  a  great 
nation  ?  Has  God  promised  to  every  believer  that  he  will  make  his 
name  great?  Is  every  believer  to  become  as  celebrated  as  Abraham? 
Has  God  promised  to  every  believer,  that  the  Messiah  shall  descend 
from  him,  or  that  in  him  all  the  families  of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed  ? 
Every  believer,  indeed,  is  to  be  blessed  according  to  that  covenant;  but 
it  is  by  having  his  faith,  like  Abraham's,  counted  for  righteousness,  not 
by  becoming,  like  Abraham,  the  father  of  any  of  the  faithful. 

Let  us  look  again  at  Gen.  xv.  5 :  "  Look  now  toward  heaven,  and 
tell  the  stars,  if  thou  be  able  to  number  them :  and  he  said  unto  him, 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  219 

So  shall  thy  seed  be.  And  he  believed  in  the  Lord,  and  He  counted  it 
to  him  for  righteousness.  And  He  said  unto  him,  I  am  the  Lord,  that 
brought  thee  out  of  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  to  give  thee  this  land  to  inherit 
it."  Is  every  believer  to  have  a  posterity  as  numerous  as  the  stars  of 
heaven?  Is  every  believer  to  have  the  land  of  Canaan  for  his  posterity? 
It  is  said  that  every  believer  has  a  provision  from  God.  This  is  granted, 
but  is  that  a  fulfilling  of  this  promise?  This  is  Canaan;  and  the 
whole  earth,  with  the  exception  of  that  land,  would  not  fulfil  this  pro- 
mise. Every  believer  has  a  provision  from  God,  but  not  in  virtue  of 
this  covenant,  nor  at  all  suitable  to  the  inheritance  here  promised. — 
Abraham's  posterity  must  have  that  land.  No  other  believer  has  this 
promise,  nor  a  promise  at  all  corresponding  to  it.  The  most  of  the 
Lord's  people  have  no  Canaan  on  earth,  though  every  one  of  them,  with 
Abraham,  is  by  faith  heir  of  that  better  country  typified  by  Canaan. 

Let  us  read  again  Gen.  xvii.  5  :  "  Neither  shall  thy  name  any  more 
be  called  Abram,  but  thy  name  shall  be  Abraham ;  for  a  father  of  many 
nations  have  I  made  thee.  And  I  will  make  thee  exceeding  fruitful,  and 
I  will  make  nations  of  thee,  and  kings  shall  come  out  of  thee.  And  I 
will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee 
in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  convenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee, 
and  to  thy  seed  after  thee.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed 
after  thee,  the  land  wherein  thou  art  a  stranger,  all  the  land  of  Canaan, 
for  an  everlasting  possession  ;  and  I  will  be  their  God."  Now,  can  any 
one  think  that  this  covenant  is  made  with  every  believer?  Has  every 
believer  a  promise  that  kings  shall  descend  from  him?  This  covenant 
is  indeed  everlasting.  It  is  everlasting  to  the  carnal  seed,  first,  as  the 
covenant  of  royalty  was  everlasting  to  the  seed  of  David,  and  as  the 
covenant  of  the  priesthood  was  everlasting  to  the  seed  of  Phinehas.  But 
in  all  such  promises  there  is  a  spirit  and  a  letter.  The  covenant  of 
Abraham  is  everlasting  in  the  full  sense  of  the  word,  for  by  it  all  Abra- 
ham's spiritual  seed  are  blessed  with  him,  by  having  their  faith  counted 
for  righteousness  to  the  end  of  the  world.  All  believers  in  every  age  are 
blessed  by  this  covenant ;  but  to  them  it  is  not  promised,  as  it.  was  to 
Abraham,  that  God  would  be  the  God  of  their  seed,  for  it  does  not 
secure  that  they  shall  have  any  offspring  at  all.  This  covenant  secured 
to  Abraham  that  he  should  have  a  seed, — that  God  would  be  the  God 
of  that  seed.  Had  not  God  provided  a  seed  both  carnal  and  spiritual 
for  Abraham,  he  would  have  broken  this  covenant.  When  God  pro- 
mised to  Phinehas,  "  And  he  shall  have  it,  and  his  seed  after  him,  even 
the  covenant  of  an  everlasting  priesthood,"  Numb.  xxv.  13,  a  posterity 
is  secured  by  this  promise.  But  believers  often  have  no  posterity,  there- 
fore they  cannot  have  the  covenant  of  Abraham.  Believers  have  their 
own  place  in  that  covenant,  but  that  is  to  be  blessed  in  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  and  like  him,  to  have  their  faith  counted  for  righteousness. 
The  promise  to  the  seed  is  to  Abraham's  seed  only — not  to  the  seed  of 
all  believers.  That  Abraham's  covenant  is  given  to  all  believers,  is  not 
said  here,  nor  any  where  else.  Abraham's  covenant  is  as  peculiar  to 
himself,  as  the  covenant  of  royalty  was  to  David,  or  the  covenant  of 
the  priesthood  to  Phinehas.     Even  if  the  covenant  of  Abraham  had 


220  THE    SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM. 

promised  that  every  one  of  Abraham's  posterity,  by  all  his  wives,  to  the 
end  of  the  world,  should  be  heirs  of  heaven,  other  believers  have  no 
concern  in  it.  "What  was  promised  to  Abraham's  seed,  was  not  pro- 
mised to  their  seed.  That  covenant  constitutes  all  believers  Abraham's 
seed,  and  secures  to  them  an  inheritance  as  such.  But  of  their  seed  it 
says  nothing. 

4.  My  fourth  observation  is,  that  the  covenant  of  Abraham  is  not  the 
new  covenant,  or  the  Gospel.  Dr.  Wardlaw  supposes  that  Gal.  iii.  8, 
establishes  the  identity  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  and  the  new  covenant 
so  clearly  that  it  is  a  matter  of  surprise  that  any  should  doubt  it.  "  And 
the  Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the  heathen  through 
faith,  preached  before  the  Gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying,  In  thee  shall  all 
nations  be  blessed."  But  this  does  not  make  Abraham's  covenant  the 
Gospel.  It  preached  the  Gospel  by  promising  that  all  nations  should 
be  blessed  in  Abraham.  It  might  be  said  also  of  the  Sinai  covenant, 
that  it  preached  the  Gospel,  because  the  giving  of  the  law  through  a 
mediator  was  a  figure  of  Christ.  Every  part  of  the  legal  dispensation 
preached  the  Gospel,  and  still  preaches  the  Gospel,  Rom.  x.  4.  Will  Dr. 
Wardlaw  say  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  covenant  of  Abraham  but 
the  Gospel ;  and  that  all  its  promises  are  promises  of  the  Gospel,  to  be 
fulfilled  to  every  believer  1  Is  it  a  part  of  the  Gospel,  that  God  will  be 
a  God  to  the  seed  of  believers,  as  he  was  to  the  seed  of  Abraham  ?  Is 
this  contained  in  the  promise,  "  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed  ?" 
This  is  the  declaration  that  is  said  to  have  preached  the  Gospel  to  Abra- 
ham prophetically.  But  it  says  nothing  to  Dr.  Wardlaw's  purpose. — 
Many  things  essential  to  Abraham's  covenant,  are  not  promised  by  the 
Gospel  to  all  believers.  It  is,  then,  only  an  abuse  of  words  to  call 
Abraham's  covenant  the  Gospel. 

5.  My  fifth  observation  is,  that  the  promises  of  the  covenant  of 
Abraham,  were  not  to  his  seed,  either  carnal  or  spiritual,  exactly  the 
same  as  to  himself.  God  promised  a  numerous  seed  to  Abraham.  But 
this  is  not  promised  to  his  seed,  either  spiritual  or  carnal,  individually. 
So  far  from  this,  the  covenant  of  Abraham  did  not  secure  to  any  indi- 
vidual of  his  race,  that  he  should  have  any  descendants,  except  to  Isaac 
and  Jacob,  to  whom  the  covenant  was  expressly  given.  It  Avould  have 
been  quite  consistent  with  all  the  promises  of  that  covenant,  that  any 
other  individual  should  be  childless ;  nay,  that  the  most  righteous  man 
of  his  race  might  either  have  no  children,  or  reprobate  children.  By 
the  covenant,  Abraham  must  have  a  succession  of  carnal  and  spiritual 
seed ;  but  this  is  not  promised  to  his  descendants.  The  race  of  any 
other  righteous  descendant  of  Abraham,  except  Isaac  and  Jacob,  might 
have  been  totally  cut  off  for  their  sins,  without  any  violation  of  Abra- 
ham's covenant.  No  Israelite,  then,  except  Isaac  and  Jacob,  had 
Abraham's  covenant.  This  is  a  grand  mistake  in  Dr.  Wardlaw.  He 
supposes  that  every  believer  has  Abraham's  covenant,  whereas  no  other 
man  ever  had  it  in  all  respects.  Even  Isaac  and  Jacob  had  it  not  in  all 
respects :  they  were  not  the  fathers  of  all  who  believe ;  while  in  some 
respects  the  whole  Jewish  nation  had  the  covenant  of  Abraham.  Grant- 
ing, then,  that  believers  now  have  the  covenant  of  Abraham,  even  as 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  221 

his  own  believing  descendants  had  it  till  the  coming  of  Christ,  this  does 
not  give  them  any  promise  to  their  seed.  If  any  man  is  a  believer,  God 
will  be  his  God,  according  to  the  covenant  of  Abraham,  or  he  is  by  faith 
one  of  the  seed  of  Abraham ;  but  that  he  shall  have  a  spiritual  or  a  car- 
nal seed,  is  not  promised  by  that  covenant.  The  covenant  secures  this 
to  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  only ;  for  to  these  it  was  individually 
given.  It  is  as  absurd  for  a  believer  to  claim  the  promises  to  Abraham, 
as  to  claim  the  crown  of  Great  Britain.  This  is  a  point  as  clear  as  the 
light  of  heaven,  and  it  overturns  all  the  elaborate  deductions  that  have 
been  drawn  from  the  Abrahamic  covenant. 

6.  My  sixth  observation  is,  that  the  promise,  "  I  will  be  a  God  to  thy 
seed,"  has  a  letter  and  a  spirit.  It  is  said,  that  in  this  promise  God 
must  be  a  God  to  Abraham's  seed,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  he  was  a 
God  to  himself.  I  acknowledge,  that  from  the  words  of  the  promise  we 
could  learn  no  distinction.  But  this  is  not  absolutely  necessary,  and 
other  Scriptures  demand  a  distinction.  Whether  it  has  not  an  inferior 
sense  in  the  letter,  must  be  determined  by  the  history  of  Abraham's  de- 
scendants. Now,  that  it  has  an  inferior  sense  in  the  letter,  is  one  of  the 
clearest  things  in  the  Old  Testament.  God  is  every  where  considered 
as  the  God  of  the  whole  Jewish  nation,  even  in  the  worst  periods  of  their 
history.  This  cannot  imply  that  he  was  their  God,  in  the  full  sense  in 
which  he  was  the  God  of  Abraham. 

Let  us  take  a  glance  at  a  few  passages  that  establish  this  distinction. 
Exod.  xxix.  45,  "  And  I  will  dwell  among  the  children  of  Israel,  and 
will  be  their  God."  This  is  spoken  of  the  whole  Jewish  nation,  who 
never  were,  as  a  nation,  the  true  people  of  God.  It  might  be  said  that 
this  is  spoken  with  respect  to  them,  as  all  in  the  New  Testament  churches 
are  addressed  as  saints,  though  there  might  be  some  who  were  not  really 
such.  But  this  is  not  an  answer.  All  in  the  New  Testament  churches 
had  given  evidence  that  they  were  believers,  though  afterwards  some  of 
them  turned  out  not  to  be  such.  But  no  such  thing  was  ever  supposed 
with  respect  to  the  Jews.  They  had  their  privileges,  not  by  evidence  of 
saintship,  but  by  their  birth.  They  were  not  only  born  into  the  kingdom 
of  Israel,  but  were  not  afterwards  put  away  for  unbelief.  There  never 
was  a  law  given  them,  as  it  was  to  the  churches  of  Christ,  that  none  but 
saints  should  belong  to  the  nation  or  church  of  Israel.  In  Exod.  xxxii. 
11,  we  read,  "And  Moses  besought  the  Lord  his  God,  and  said,  Lord, 
why  doth  thy  wrath  wax  hot  against  thy  people  ?" — "  Turn  from  thy 
fierce  wrath,  and  repent  of  this  evil  against  thy  people." — "And  the  Lord 
repented  of  the  evil  which  he  thought  to  do  against  his  people."  Here 
the  worshippers  of  the  golden  calf  are  called  God's  people ;  and  the 
ground  on  which  Moses  pleads  that  God  would  not  execute  vengeance, 
is,  that  his  promise  of  their  inheriting  the  land  might  not  be  violated. 

The  same  thing  is  evident  from  Lev.  xxvi.  44,  "And  yet  for  all  that, 
when  they  be  in  the  land  of  their  enemies,  I  will  not  cast  them  away, 
neither  will  abhor  them,  to  destroy  them  utterly,  and  to  break  my  cove- 
nant with  them  :  for  1  am  the  Lord  their  God."  Even  in  Babylon  he 
fulfilled  his  promise  of  being  unto  them  the  Lord  their  God. 

Agreeably  to  this,  God  is  every  where  in  the  Old  Testament  con- 


222  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

sidered  as  the  husband  of  Israel ;  and  this  relation  is  acknowledged  even 
in  her  adulteries,  fcaifth  iii.  14^/'  Turn,  O  backsliding  children,  saith 
the  Lord;  for  I  am  married  unto  you."  But  it  would  be  endless  to 
quote  passages.  Now,  God  was  the  husband  of  Israel  only  in  the  letter, 
which  was  accomplished  in  Jesus  becoming  the  husband  of  his  church. 
That  the  covenant  of  Abraham  has  a  letter  and  a  spirit,  is  not  a 
theory  formed  to  serve  a  purpose,  but  is  consonant  to  every  part  of  the 
old  dispensation,  and  is  the  only  thing  that  can  harmonise  it  with  the 
new.  The  temple  was  the  house  of  God  in  the  letter ;  believers  are  so 
in  the  spirit.  To  call  any  house  the  house  of  God,  is  as  much  below  the 
sense  which  the  same  phrase  has  when  it  is  applied  to  the  church  of 
Christ,  as  to  call  the  nation  of  Israel  the  people  of  God,  is  below  the 
sense  which  that  phrase  has  when  applied  to  the  spiritual  Israel.  Besides, 
there  are  many  things  spoken  about  the  house  of  God  in  the  letter,  in 
terms  that  can  only  fully  suit  the  spirit.  "  I  have  surely  built  thee  an 
house  to  dwell  in,  a  settled  place  for  thee  to  abide  in  for  ever :"  1  Kings 
viii.  13.  The  incongruity  of  supposing  Him,  whom  the  heaven  of  hea- 
vens cannot  contain,  to  dwell  in  a  house  as  a  settled  habitation,  is  removed 
only  by  referring  it  to  the  spirit,  or  God  as  dwelling  in  the  flesh.  Christ's 
body  is  the  only  temple  of  which  this  is  fully  true.  God  did  not  dwell 
in  the  temple  built  by  Solomon  for  ever ;  but  in  the  spirit,  it  is  accom- 
plished in  its  utmost  extent.  God  will  dwell  in  the  temple  of  Christ's 
body  for  ever.  In  like  manner,  in  answer  to  Solomon,  God  declares, 
"  I  have  hallowed  this  house,  which  thou  hast  built,  to  put  my  name 
there  for  ever;  and  mine  eyes  and  mine  heart  shall  be  there  perpe- 
tually." 1  Kings  ix.  3.  It  is  only  in  Christ  that  the  spirit  of  this  is 
fully  accomplished.  In  him  the  name  of  God  is  put  for  ever;  and  in 
him  is  he  propitious  to  his  people  for  ever.  His  eyes  were  long  ago 
turned  from  the  house  at  Jerusalem.  The  nation  of  Israel  was  the 
kingdom  of  God  as  the  letter :  the  church  of  Christ  is  the  kingdom  of 
God  as  the  spirit.  The  nation  of  Israel  was  a  kingdom  of  priests,  and 
an  holy  nation :  the  church  of  Christ  is  the  spirit  of  which  the  other  was 
but  the  letter.  Israel  was  an  elected  people ;  but  they  were  only  types 
of  the  true  election.  They  were  all  Jews  in  the  letter ;  but  it  is  said, 
notwithstanding,  that  he  is  not  a  Jew  who  is  one  outwardly  :  Rom.  ii.  28. 
There  was  an  Israel  after  the  flesh,  and  an  Israel  after  the  spirit.  "  For 
they  are  not  all  Israel,  which  are  of  Israel ;  neither  because  they  are  the 
seed  of  Abraham,  are  they  all  children :  but,  In  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be 
called.  That  is,  they  which  are  the  children  of  the  flesh,  these  are  not 
the  children  of  God  :  but  the  children  of  the  promise  are  counted  for  the 
seed."  Rom.  ix.  6.  Here  we  are  furnished  with  an  inspired  commentary 
on  this  covenant.  God  was  the  God  of  the  nation  of  Israel  in  the  letter  i 
and  as  such,  he  gave  them  an  inheritance  and  laws,  and  ordinances  of 
worship,  &c.  Even  in  that  sense,  he  was  not  ashamed  to  be  called  their 
God ;  for  he  prepared  for  them  a  city.  But  to  those  who,  with  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  desired  a  better  country,  that  is,  an  heavenly,  he  pre- 
pared a  city  fully  answerable  to  the  magnificence  of  the  title,  people  of 
God.  Of  all  the  innumerable  things  which  have  a  letter  and  a  spirit 
with  respect  to  Christ  and  his  people,  there  is  not  one  instance  in  which 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  223 

a  magnificence  is  not  given  to  the  letter,  which  can  be  fully  found  only 
in  the  spirit.  So  little  reason  have  we  to  think  it  strange,  that  God 
should  call  himself  the  God  of  a  whole  nation  in  a  typical  sense,  when 
the  body  of  that  nation  were  not  his  true  people. 

7.  My  seventh  observation  is,  that  when  a  promise  has  a  letter  and  a 
spirit,  it  is  fulfilled  when  it  is  accomplished  in  either  the  letter  or  the 
spirit.  It  has  two  distinct  accomplishments,  and  may  be  fulfilled  in  either, 
or  in  both.  The  Scriptures  afford  many  examples  to  justify  this  obser- 
vation. When,  then,  it  is  said,  that  both  the  temporal  promises  and  the 
spiritual  in  the  covenant  of  Abraham  are  to  the  same  seed,  all  that  can 
be  admitted  is,  that  the  words  of  the  covenant  do  not  make  the  distinc- 
tion. But  the  distinction  is  seen  in  the  history  of  the  fulfilment  of  the 
promises,  and  in  the  explanation  of  these  promises.  Paul,  in  his  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  clearly  shows  the  distinction  between  the  two  seeds; 
and  the  history  shows  us  that  the  nation  in  general  enjoyed  the  temporal 
promises,  but  only  few  of  them  enjoyed  the  spiritual.  Nothing  can  be 
clearer  than  this,  and  it  is  useless  to  reason  with  any  who  have  so  little 
spiritual  discernment,  as  to  think  that  all  who  enjoyed  the  earthly  Canaan, 
were  also  heirs  of  the  heavenly.  The  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  enjoyed 
the  earthly  rest ;  while  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  were  strangers  in 
Canaan,  and  died  not  having  received  the  promises. 

8.  My  eighth  observation  is,  that  circumcision  neither  signed  nor 
sealed  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  Abraham  to  the  individuals  to 
whom  it  was  by  Divine  appointment  administered.  It  did  not  imply 
that  they  who  were  circumcised  were  accounted  the  heirs* of  the  pro- 
mises, either  temporal  or  spiritual.  It  was  not  applied  to  mark  them 
individually  as  heirs  of  the  promises.  It  did  not  imply  this  even  to 
Isaac  and  Jacob,  who  are  by  name  designated  heirs  with  Abraham. 
Their  interest  in  the  promises  was  secured  to  them,  by  God's  expressly 
giving  them  the  covenant,  but  was  not  represented  in  their  circumcision. 
Circumcision  marked  no  character,  and  had  an  individual  application  to 
no  man  but  Abraham  himself.  It  was  the  token  of  this  covenant;  and 
as  a  token  or  sign,  no  doubt  applied  to  every  promise  in  the  covenant, 
but  it  did  not  designate  the  individuals  circumcised  as  having  a  personal 
interest  in  these  promises.  The  covenant  promised  a  numerous  seed  to 
Abraham ;  circumcision,  as  the  token  of  that  covenant,  must  have  been 
a  sign  of  this.  But  it  did  not  sign  this  to  any  other.  Any  other  circum- 
cised individual,  except  Isaac  and  Jacob,  to  whom  the  covenant  was 
given  by  name,  might  have  been  childless.  Circumcision  did  not  import 
to  any  individual,  that  any  portion  of  the  numerous  seed  of  Abraham 
should  descend  through  him.  The  covenant  promised  that  all  nations 
should  be  blessed  in  Abraham,  or  that  the  Messiah  should  be  his 
descendant.  But  circumcision  was  no  sign  to  any  other  that  the  Messiah 
should  descend  from  him, — even  to  Isaac  and  Jacob  this  promise  was 
peculiarly  given,  and  not  implied  in  their  circumcision.  From  some  of 
Abraham's  race,  the  Messiah,  according  to  the  covenant,  must  descend, 
and  circumcision  was  a  sign  of  this  :  but  this  was  not  signed  by  circum- 
cision to  any  one  of  all  his  race.  Much  less  could  circumcision  sign  this 
to  the  strangers  and  slaves  who  were  not  of  Abraham's  posterity.     To 


224  THE    SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM. 

such,  even  the  temporal  promises  were  not  either  signed  or  sealed  by 
circumcision.  The  covenant  promised  Canaan  to  Abraham's  descend- 
ants, but  circumcision  could  be  no  sign  of  this  to  the  strangers  and 
slaves  who  enjoyed  no  inheritance  in  it.  Indeed,  even  to  Abraham's  seed, 
it  could  not  sign  Canaan  individually.  For  upwards  of  four  hundred 
years  from  the  institution  of  circumcision,  Abraham's  posterity  did  not 
enjoy  Canaan,  and  millions  of  infants  died  without  having  enjoyed  it. 
To  these,  then,  circumcision  could  not  be  a  sign  of  their  enjoyment  of 
that  land.  If  it  is  said,  that  though  they  did  not  possess  it,  they  had  a 
right  to  it,  I  reply,  that  they  had  no  right  to  it  more  than  possession,  for 
God  would  not  do  wrong  in  depriving  them  of  their  right.  What  was 
the  ground  of  their  right?  Had  they  a  promise  or  grant?  They  had 
not.  The  land  was  promised  to  the  seed  of  Abraham  by  Jacob,  but  not 
to  all  of  them.  Had  it  been  promised  to  them  all,  they  must  have  all 
enjoyed  it,  for  God  does  not  break  his  promises.  To  Abraham,  it  was 
individually  promised,  as  also  to  Isaac  and  Jacob ;  and  to  them  the  pro- 
mise was  fulfilled  in  the  spirit,  as  it  was  to  many  in  the  letter,  who  en- 
joyed not  the  promise  in  the  spirit.  They  obtained  the  better  country 
denoted  by  the  promise  of  Canaan,  and  so,  though  they  died  not  having 
received  the  promises,  they  died  that  they  might  receive  them.  When 
a  prediction,  or  promise,  has  a  letter  and  a  spirit,  it  is  fulfilled  when  it  is 
accomplished  either  in  the  letter  or  the  spirit.  What  sort  of  a  right  is  a 
right  to  possess  what  is  never  designed  to  be  given?  A  man  may  have 
a  right  to  possess  what  he  never  possesses,  but  assuredly  he  will  have  no 
such  right  from  God.  God  will  not  withhold  any  right :  Abraham  must 
have  enjoyed  what  was  promised.  The  promise  of  the  land,  then,  must 
in  the  letter  have  respected  Abraham's  posterity,  while  it  was  accom- 
plished to  himself  in  a  higher  sense.  He  died,  not  disappointed,  but 
looking  for  the  promise.  As  the  promises  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant 
were  all  unconditional,  they  must  have  been  fulfilled  to  every  individual 
interested  in  them. 

But  whatever  may  be  said  about  the  right  of  possessing  Canaan,  with 
respect  to  those  who  did  not  possess  it,  the  reply  of  Mr.  Innes  is  abund- 
antly sufficient.  "  Even  this  right  to  Canaan  only  belonged  to  one  branch 
of  Abraham's  family,  while  circumcision  was  to  be  administered  to  all. 
To  those  who  were  subjected  to  it,  then,  it  did  not,  as  individuals,  seal 
temporal  blessings.  Again,  no  one  will  allege  it  sealed  spiritual  bless- 
ings to  every  one  to  whom  it  was  applied,  as  it  was  manifest,  that  many 
of  those  commanded  to  receive  it,  had  no  interest  in  such  blessings." 

Much  stress  has  been  laid  on  Rom.  iv.  11,  in  which  circumcision  is 
called  "  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  Abraham  had,  yet 
being  uncircumcised."  It  is  said  that  it  was  a  seal  of  spiritual  bless- 
ings. Undoubtedly  it  was  a  seal  of  spiritual  blessings,  but  not  a  seal  to 
the  individuals  who  were  circumcised,  that  they  were  personally  inter- 
ested in  those  blessings.  It  seals  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  namely,  that 
there  is  righteousness  in  the  faith  of  Abraham,  or  that  all  who  have 
Abraham's  faith  have  righteousness.  This  is  what  it  sealed  when 
applied  to  Abraham :  this  is  what  it  sealed  in  every  instance  of  its 
application.     But  it  did  not  seal,  even  to  Isaac  and  Jacob,  that  they 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  225 

had  this  righteousness.  It  sealed  the  same  truth  when  applied  to 
Ishmael  or  Esau,  or  the  slaves  bought  with  money,  as  it  did  when 
applied  to  those  who  walked  in  the  steps  of  Abraham's  faith.  It  had  no 
individual  application  to  any  man  but  Abraham  himself.  Words  cannot 
more  expressly  assert,  that  the  thing  of  which  circumcision  is  a  seal,  is 
the  righteousness  of  the  faith  of  Abraham.  It  was  not  a  seal  to  others 
that  they  possessed  the  faith  of  Abraham.  Dr.  Wardlaw  supposes  that 
such  a  marked  reference  to  Abraham,  would  be  inconsistent  with  farther 
trial.  But  this  is  a  strange  observation  from  an  experienced  Christian, 
deeply  conversant  with  the  Bible  and  his  own  heart.  Were  we  in  the 
morning  assured,  by  a  voice  from  heaven,  that  God  had  accepted  us,' 
were  Satan  to  be  let  loose  upon  us,  and  we  left  to  ourselves,  it  would  not 
secure  us  till  the  evening  from  all  the  horrors  of  despair.  Had  God 
forsaken  Abraham  for  a  moment,  he  might  have  doubted  whether  it  was 
God  who  had  spoken  to  him  in  these  transactions.  Trial  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  utmost  assurance  that  the  Christian  receives  in  this  world. 
He  may  hold  the  truth  this  moment  with  the  utmost  assurance;  let  him 
be  given  into  the  hands  of  Satan  to  sift  him,  and  he  may  doubt  it  the 
next.  Christ  himself  received  his  Father's  testimony  by  a  voice  from 
heaven,  before  he  entered  on  his  temptations,  yet  they  were  not  less  a 
trial  on  that  account. 

That  circumcision  was  not  intended  to  seal  anything  personally  to 
those  who  received  it,  is  clear  from  its  being  applied  to  those  who  have 
no  interest  in  the  covenant  to  which  it  was  attached.  For  a  full,  clear, 
and  satisfactory  view  of  this  argument,  I  refer  to  Mr.  Innes,  in  his  work 
entitled  Eugenio  and  Epinetus.  Dr.  Wardlaw  alludes  to  it,  but  he  can- 
not be  said  even  to  have  assailed  it.  Every  position  of  Mr.  Innes 
remains  unshaken.  Ishmael  was  circumcised,  who  was  expressly 
excluded  from  the  covenant.  Abraham's  slaves  were  commanded  to  be 
circumcised,  without  any  reference  to  faith.  "  He  that  is  born  in  thy 
house,  and  he  that  is  bought  with  thy  money,  must  needs  be  circum- 
cised." Gen.  xvii.  13.  "  And  Abraham  took  Ishmael  his  son,  and  all 
that  were  born  in  his  house,  and  all  that  were  bought  with  his  money, 
every  male  among  the  men  of  Abraham's  house ;  and  circumcised  the 
flesh  of  their  foreskin  in  the  self-same  day,  as  God  had  said  unto  him," 
ver.  23.  Dr.  Wardlaw  supposes  that  submission  on  the  part  of  the 
adult  slaves  must  have  been  voluntary.  But  this  is  not  necessary.  As 
a  master,  he  had  power  to  enforce  obedience,  and  this  commission 
authorised  him.  Abraham  would  have  been  justified  in  circumcising 
his  slaves,  had  every  one  of  them  submitted  with  reluctance,  or  had 
endeavoured  to  resist.  If,  then,  this  is  the  law  of  baptism,  it  will  justify 
the  Spaniards  in  compelling  the  American  Indians  to  be  baptized.  Nay, 
it  will  make  it  the  duty  of  every  master  of  slaves  to  have  them  baptized, 
whether  they  have  faith  or  not ;  for  Abraham  was  bound  to  circumcise 
every  slave  and  every  person  in  his  house.  Dr.  Wardlaw  speaks  of 
force  as  being  a  profanation  of  a  Divine  ordinance.  To  this  Mr.  Hal- 
dane's  reply  is  quite  in  point.  "  If  in  Israel  a  beautiful  woman  was 
taken  captive,  and  an  Israelite  chose  to  marry  her,  it  was  the  Divine 
ordinance  that  her  hair  and  nails  should  be  cut.  Now,  why  should  there 

29 


226  THE    SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

be  greater  profaneness  in  cutting  off  the  foreskin  ?"  But  this  objection 
is  founded  on  an  entire  mistake  as  to  the  nature  of  the  profanation  of  a 
Divine  ordinance.  How  is  a  Divine  ordinance  profaned  ?  When  it  is 
not  in  all  respects  applied  according  to  institution.  It  cannot  be  a  pro- 
fanation of  the  ordinance  of  circumcision,  to  apply  it  to  those  to  whom 
it  is  expressly  enjoined.  Had  murderers  and  adulterers  been  included  in 
the  command  to  baptize,  and  to  eat  the  Lord's  supper,  it  would  have 
been  no  profanation  of  Divine  ordinances,  more  than  to  preach  the  Gos- 
pel to  such  persons,  profanes  the  Gospel.  Does  Dr.  Wardlaw  mean,  that 
to  force  compliance  to  his  appointments  would  be  profane  in  God  ?  Man 
has  no  right  to  use  force  with  respect  to  Divine  appointments,  because 
God  has  not  given  that  authority.  But  God  is  a  sovereign  in  all  respects, 
and  may  in  justice  enforce  obedience.  Accordingly,  he  commanded  the 
Canaanites  to  be  cut  off,  and  all  idolators  to  be  destroyed  out  of  Israel. 
This  is  a  grand  distinction  between  the  Jewish  dispensation  and  the 
Christian.  The  subjects  of  Christ's  kingdom  are  all  voluntary.  To 
baptize  infants  is  to  profane  baptism,  because  it  applies  the  ordinance  to 
those  not  appointed  to  receive  it.  But  to  force  slaves  to  receive 
circumcision  is  not  a  profanation,  for  Abraham's  commission  warranted 
force. 

But  even  although  the  submission  to  circumcision  had  been  voluntary 
on  the  part  of  the  slaves ;  is  a  voluntary  submission  all  that  is  required 
for  baptism  ?  Is  every  man  to  be  baptized  who  is  willing  to  submit  to 
the  ordinance.  Dr.  Wardlaw  endeavours  to  obtain  some  relief  from 
the  faithfulness  of  Abraham,  in  teaching  his  family.  But  whatever  may 
be  supposed  as  to  his  faithfulness  and  success  in  teaching  his  slaves, 
their  circumcision  is  not  grounded  on  this,  but  on  their  being  his  pro- 
perty, and  in  his  house.  The  command  will  apply  to  one  that  had  been 
bought  on  that  day,  or  to  the  most  profane  scoffer,  as  well  as  to  Eliezer 
of  Damascus.  But  what  an  extravagant  supposition,  that  every  slave  in 
Abraham's  house  had  Abraham's  faith!  And  if  they  had  not  Abraham's 
faith,  they  were  not  such  as  have  a  right  to  baptism.  If  all  Abraham's 
household  were  so  well  taught,  Abraham  was  much  more  successful  with 
his  slaves,  than  Jacob  was  with  his  sons.  But  we  need  not  waste  time 
in  refuting  a  supposition  that  is  altogether  apocryphal.  There  is  nothing 
said  about  the  knowledge  or  faith  of  Abraham's  slaves;  and  they  were 
commanded  to  be  circumcised,  not  on  account  of  their  faith  or  knowledge, 
but  on  account  of  being  the  property  of  Abraham. 

The  circumcision  of  the  slaves,  which  destroys  the  system  of  our 
opponents,  is  not  only  consonant  to  our  views,  but  appears  as  suitable 
as  the  circumcision  of  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham  by  Isaac  and  Jacob  : 
it  is  one  of  the  patterns  of  heavenly  things.  As  natural  birth  gives  a 
title  to  circumcision  and  the  earthly  inheritance,  which  was  a  figure  of 
the  title  of  all  who  are  born  of  the  Spirit,  to  enjoy  the  heavenly  inherit- 
ance ;  so  the  circumcision  of  the  slaves  bought  with  money,  represented 
that  all  who  enter  into  Christ's  kingdom  are  bought  with  his  blood. 
The  circumcision  of  the  slaves  is  as  instructive  as  the  circumcision  of 
Isaac.  They  had  a  typical  holiness,  perfectly  the  same  as  the  natural 
posterity  of  Abraham.    The  puroose  of  God  in  the  circumcision  of  both 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  227 

Abraham's  posterity  and  of  their  slaves,  was  totally  independent  of  per- 
sonal character. 

Such  a  circumcision,  then,  could  not  imply,  that  the  individuals  had 
an  interest  in  the  spiritual  promises  of  the  covenant.  Indeed,  the  circum- 
cision of  slaves  did  not  make  them  partakers  even  of  the  temporal 
promises.  "  Servants,"  says  Mr.  Haldane,  "  although  circumcised,  did 
not  possess  the  privileges  of  the  children  of  Abraham,  nor  were  looked 
upon  as  the  people  of  God.  They  had  no  share  of  the  land,  and  there 
was  no  precept  against  selling  them  to  another  nation,  when  they  would 
lose  all  privileges  of  Israel.  This  also  manifestly  appears  from  many 
considerations.  In  many  of  the  laws,  the  distinction  between  Israel,  who 
were  the  Lord's  servants,  and  the  stranger,  is  stated.  Thus  they  might 
lend  on  usury  to  a  stranger,  but  not  to  their  brother,  Deut.  xxiii.  20. 
They  were  not  to  eat  what  died  of  itself;  they  were  to  give  it  unto 
the  stranger  that  was  in  their  gates,  that  he  might  eat  it,  or  they 
might  sell  it  to  an  alien ;  and  the  reason  given  is, '  For  thou  art  an  holy 
people  unto  the  Lord  thy  God.'  Deut.  xiv.  21.  They  might  also  buy 
bondmen  and  bondmaids,  not  only  of  the  heathen  round  about  them, 
but  of  the  children  of  the  stranger  that  sojourned  among  them,  but  they 
could  not  keep  an  Israelite  a  bondman.  Lev.  xxv.  39 — 46.  Thus  it 
appears,  that  a  person  being  circumcised  did  not  thereby  become  entitled 
to  the  privileges  of  the  children  of  Abraham,  or  of  God's  peculiar  peo- 
ple." The  Shechemites,  also,  as  Mr.  Haldane  observes,  were  circum- 
cised not  only  without  evidence  of  faith,  but  even  without  a  profession 
of  it,  which  could  not  have  been  done  with  the  approbation  of  Jacob, 
had  it  been  unlawful.  Here,  then,  persons  are  circumcised  not  only  who 
had  no  evidence  of  being  interested  in  the  promises  of  the  covenant,  but 
who  were  shut  out  from  its  temporal  promises  most  expressly.  From  the 
spiritual  promises  they  were  excluded  as  long  as  they  continued  unbe- 
lievers, but  from  the  temporal  promises  they  were  excluded  for  ever. 
Persons,  then,  were  circumcised  who  never  could  obtain  an  interest  in 
some  of  the  blessings  of  the  covenant,  of  which  circumcision  was  the 
token.     How  absurd,  then,  to  make  this  the  law  of  baptism ! 

But  that  circumcision,  as  a  seal,  had  a  personal  reference  to  infants,  is 
impossible.  Our  opponents  generally  say,  that  circumcision  was  a  seal 
of  spiritual  blessings ;  but  the  spiritual  blessing  of  which  it  is  said  to 
be  the  seal,  is  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  of  Abraham.  Now,  of  this 
spiritual  blessing  infants  do  not  partake — they  do  not  possess  the  faith  of 
Abraham.     Circumcision,  then,  cannot  seal  what  is  not  true.     To  all 

INFANTS  IT  IS  EQUALLY  UNSUITABLE  AS  A  SEAL.       None  of  them  possess 

the  faith  of  the  righteousness  of  which  circumcision  was  the  seal. — 
The  argument,  then,  from  circumcision,  for  the  baptism  of  infants,  is 
utterly  groundless.  The  former  was  applied  to  those  who  were  mani- 
festly destitute  of  an  interest  in  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  Abraham. 
The  spiritual  or  emblematical  meaning  of  circumcision,  the  change  of 
the  heart  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  also  without  personal  reference  to  the 
circumcised  infants.  Infants  were  circumcised  in  the  flesh,  but  were  not 
circumcised  in  the  heart.  Fanaticism  itself  cannot  suppose,  that  all  the 
male  infants  of  Israel,  and  of  the  slaves  of  Israel,  were  renewed  by  the 


228  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

Holy  Spirit  before  the  eighth  day.  The  thing,  therefore,  that  is  shadowed 
by  circumcision,  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  infants  who  were  circumcised. 
In  this  it  differs  from  baptism  by  the  distance  of  heaven  and  earth. 

That  circumcision  had  no  personal  reference  to  the  individuals  circum- 
cised, is  also  evident  from  the  fact,  that  when  a  stranger  desired  to  eat 
the  passover,  all  the  males  of  his  family  must  be  circumcised.  "  And 
when  a  stranger  shall  sojourn  with  thee,  and  will  keep  the  passover  to 
the  Lord,  let  all  his  males  be  circumcised,  and  then  let  him  come  near 
and  keep  it."  Exod.  xii.  43.  Here  there  is  no  faith  required  in  the 
person  who  desires  to  eat  the  passover,  nor  in  his  adult  males,  whether 
children  or  slaves,  who  are  to  be  circumcised  as  the  condition  of  his  eat- 
ing the  passover.  The  circumcision  of  his  whole  male  family  takes 
place  as  a  matter  of  course.  There  is,  then,  no  law  that  requires  even 
a  profession  of  faith  in  the  God  of  Israel,  in  order  to  entitle  a  stranger 
to  eat  the  passover.  There  is  no  condition  of  either  faith  or  character ; 
and  had  he  a  thousand  unbelieving  children  and  slaves,  he  has  a  Divine 
warrant  to  circumcise  them. 

Our  opponents  are  in  the  habit  of  insisting  that  baptism  has  come  in 
the  room  of  circumcision,  or  that  it  is  the  Christian  circumcision.  But 
this  is  a  most  groundless  figment,  for  which  there  is  no  plausible  founda- 
tion in  the  word  of  God.  Yet  the  thing  is  so  generally  received,  that  it 
is  taken  for  granted  as  a  first  principle.  To  overturn  it,  nothing  more 
is  necessary  than  to  call  for  its  proof.  Col.  ii.  11, 12,  is  usually  appealed 
to  as  giving  some  countenance  to  the  idea ;  and  Mr.  Ewing  is  confident 
that,  on  any  other  principle,  the  apostle's  reasoning  is  inconclusive,  and 
even  his  language  unintelligible.  Now,  it  is  very  strange  how  this 
passage  can  be  made  to  speak  so  decisively  on  this  point.  Let  us  hear 
it  speak  for  itself:  "In  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circum- 
cision made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh 
by  the  circumcision  of  Christ :  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein 
also  ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God, 
who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead."  This  passage  says  not  a  word 
about  the  subject,  either  expressly  or  by  implication.  How,  then,  does 
Mr.  Ewing  extract  his  notion  from  it  ?  Why,  by  the  help  of  a  little 
management.  He  represents  the  apostle  as  saying,  "  Being  buried  with 
Christ  by  the  washing  of  baptism,  they  are  circumcised  with  the  circum- 
cision made  without  hands."  Ah,  Mr.  Ewing,  can  your  conscience  allow 
you  to  put  so  profane  a  hand  on  the  word  of  God?  He  that  can  take 
this  liberty  with  the  Scriptures,  may  prove  or  disprove  anything.  Does 
the  apostle  say,  "  Being  buried,  ye  are  circumcised?"  This  makes  the 
apostle  assert,  that  they  were  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made 
without  hands,  by  baptism.  But  this  is  not  the  apostle's  assertion.  He 
asserts,  that  they  were  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  of  Christ,  in 
or  by  the  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision 
of  Christ.  What  is  said  of  baptism  is  something  additional.  By  no 
torture  are  the  words  capable  of  Mr.  Ewing's  gloss.  The  apostle  himself 
minutely  explains  how  they  were  circumcised  in  Christ.  It  is  a  circum- 
cision made  without  hands.  It  cannot,  then,  be  baptism ;  for  it  is  not 
without  hands.     This  circumcision  consists  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  229 

sins  of  the  flesh.  The  external  circumcision  cut  off  a  part  of  the  flesh ; 
the  circumcision  without  hands  puts  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh. 
This  is  the  circumcision  of  Christ ;  the  other  was  the  circumcision  of 
the  law.  It  is  the  circumcision  made  without  hands,  the  putting  off  the 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  that  is  here  expressly  called  the  circum- 
cision of  Christ.  It  is  called  the  circumcision  made  without  hands,  to 
distinguish  it  from  its  type,  the  circumcision  of  the  flesh  :  it  is  called  the 
circumcision  in  which  is  put  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  to  dis- 
tinguish it  from  the  typical  circumcision,  which  did  not  cut  off  sin,  but 
flesh :  it  is  called  the  circumcision  of  Christ,  to  distinguish  it  from  the 
circumcision  of  Moses.  No  language  can  be  more  express,  or  less  capa- 
ble of  perversion.  The  circumcision  here  spoken  of,  could  not  possibly 
be  baptism ;  because  it  is  a  circumcision  which  Christians  are  not  only 
said  to  have  without  any  external  operation,  but  which  they  have  in 
Christ :  "In  whom  ye  are  circumcised."  Christ  himself  performs  this 
circumcision,  and  we  have  it  in  him. 

This  passage  clearly  shows  us  what  came  in  the  room  of  circumcision. 
The  circumcision  made  without  hands,  came  in  the  room  of  the  circum- 
cision made  with  hands ;  the  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh 
came  in  the  room  of  the  cutting  off  the  foreskin ;  the  circumcision  of 
Christ  came  in  the  room  of  the  circumcision  of  Moses.  All  Christians 
are  circumcised  in  heart,  as  all  Jewish  males  were  circumcised  in  the 
flesh.  The  Christian  ordinances  do  not  come  in  the  room  of  the  Jewish 
ordinances.  Were  this  the  case,  every  Jewish  ordinance  is  equally  en- 
titled to  a  substitute  or  successor.  Circumcision  has  no  peculiar  right 
to  a  preference.  Every  Jewish  ordinance  signified  spiritual  things,  as 
well  as  circumcision.  They  are  all  fulfilled  in  their  emblematical  mean- 
ing, not  in  corresponding  ordinances.  For  anything  which  we  could 
learn  from  the  Old  Testament,  there  might  not  have  been  any  ritual 
ordinance  in  the  New. 

Circumcision  and  baptism  correspond  in  meaning.  They  both  relate 
to  the  removal  of  sin,  the  one  by  cutting,  the  other  by  washing.  The 
Lord's  supper  and  the  passover  have  a  resemblance  still  more  close ;  yet 
the  one  is  not  said  to  come  in  the  room  of  the  other.  Christ  himself 
has  come  in  the  room  of  the  passover ;  for  it  is  said,  "  Christ  our  Pass- 
over is  sacrificed  for  us."  The  Lord's  supper  is  a  feast  of  like  nature, 
but  with  this  fundamental  difference,  which  equally  applies  to  baptism 
and  circumcision, — it  does  not  belong  to  the  same  persons.  The  Lord's 
supper,  as  well  as  baptism,  belongs  solely  to  the  true  Israel  of  God :  the 
passover  belonged  to  the  carnal  Israel,  without  respect  to  their  faith  or 
character.  The  persons  whom  John  drove  from  his  baptism,  had  as 
good  a  right  to  all  the  Jewish  ordinances  as  John  the  Baptist  himself. 
The  scribes,  and  Pharisees,  and  Sadducees,  with  the  whole  unbelieving 
body  of  the  Jewish  nation,  enjoyed  all  the  ordinances  of  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation, by  as  valid  a  title  as  the  apostles  of  Christ.  Neither  Jesus 
nor  his  apostles  ever  forbade  this,  nor  made  any  observations  on  it  as  an 
impropriety.  The  ministrations  of  the  priests  were  never  objected  to ; 
because  they  were  carnal  men,  and  rejected  the  Messiah  when  he  mani- 
fested himself  to  Israel.      This  is  the  grand  distinction   between  the 


230  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

Jewish  ordinances  and  the  ordinances  of  the  church  of  Christ.  The 
former  shadowed  good  things  to  come,  and  were  appointed  for  the 
nation  in  general,  which  had  only  a  typical  holiness ;  the  latter  are  ap- 
pointed only  for  the  true  holy  people,  and  take  it  for  granted,  that  all 
who  partake  of  them,  enjoy  the  thing  figured  by  them. 

If  baptism  came  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  it  would  not  have  com- 
menced till  the  other  had  ceased ;  nor  would  it  have  been  applied  to 
circumcised  persons.  Why  did  John  baptize  the  circumcised  Jews 
before  the  manifestation  of  Christ?  Why  did  Jesus  baptize  before  the 
end  of  the  Jewish  dispensation?  But  why  shall  we  labour  to  overturn 
a  mere  figment?  There  is  no  need  to  establish,  by  arguments,  that  bap- 
tism did  not  come  in  the  room  of  circumcision.  Our  opponents  must 
prove  that  it  did;  and  for  this  they  have  not  the  shadow  of  proof.  They 
have  the  saying  of  divines,  but  this  is  the  highest  authority.  It  rests  on 
no  better  evidence  than  the  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees  for  the  washing  of 
hands  before  meat ;  it  is  a  tradition  of  the  elders.  Even  if  it  did  come 
in  the  room  of  circumcision,  this  does  not  import  that  it  must  have  the 
same  subjects,  or  be  regulated  by  the  same  laws.  How  far  they  agree, 
and  how  far  they  differ,  must  be  learned  from  what  is  said  of  them 
respectively.  It  is  impossible  to  ascertain,  from  general  principles,  how 
far  likeness  extends. 

Our  opponents  found  the  right  of  the  child  on  the  faith  of  the  imme- 
diate ancestor.  But  if  the  law  of  circumcision  is  to  regulate  baptism, 
the  posterity  of  a  believer  have  a  right  to  baptism,  to  the  remotest  gene- 
rations, if  all  their  intermediate  progenitors  were  atheists.  The  child 
of  a  Jew  must  be  circumcised  without  any  respect  to  the  faith  of  the 
parent.  If,  then,  none  but  believers  have  a  right  to  obtain  baptism  for 
their  children,  the  law  of  circumcision  does  not  apply  to  it.  Why,  then, 
should  it  apply  in  anything  else  ? 

It  is  said,  that  if  the  children  of  believers  are  not  baptized,  the  privi- 
leges of  the  Jewish  church  are  greater  than  those  of  the  Christian  church. 
As  reasonably  may  this  be  said,  if  slaves  are  not  baptized  with  their 
masters,  and  if  we  have  not  all  an  earthly  Canaan.  "We  have  no 
earthly  inheritance  like  Israel,"  says  Mr.  Haldane,  "  nor  are  Christian 
servants  entirely  exempted  from  work  one  day  in  seven,  nor  have  we  a 
sabbatic  year,  nor  a  jubilee  when  our  debts  are  discharged."  As  to 
parents  and  children,  circumcision  was  no  privilege  at  all.  Had  circum- 
cision made  the  children  of  the  Jews  heirs  either  of  Canaan  or  of  hea- 
ven, it  might  be  considered  as  a  privilege,  but  it  did  neither.  It  was  not 
enjoined,  nor  ever  explained  as  a  privilege  to  individuals.  It  was  en- 
joined by  the  most  severe  penalty,  even  death.  The  females  had  no 
loss  by  the  want  of  it.  They  enjoyed  every  spiritual  privilege  equally 
with  the  males ;  and  the  want  of  circumcision  did  not  deprive  them  even 
of  any  temporal  privilege,  which  they  would  have  enjoyed.  It  is  true, 
indeed,  that  Paul  says  that  there  was  much  profit  in  circumcision.  Rom. 
iii.  1,  2.  But  it  is  evident  that  this  includes  females,  and  refers  to 
Israel  as  the  circumcised  nation.  Circumcision  is  here  taken  for  the 
whole  legal  dispensation  to  which  it  was  attached  ;  for  the  chief  of 
these  privileges  was,  "  that  to  them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God." 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  231 

Now  the  females  had  this  privilege  equally  with  the  males.  It  was,  then, 
rather  a  privilege  to  the  females  to  be  freed  from  this  painful  rite. 
Indeed,  nothing  can  more  clearly  prove  that  circumcision  could  not  be 
a  spiritual  privilege,  than  that  the  females  were  excluded.  There  never 
was  a  spiritual  distinction  between  male  and  female.  Circumcision  was 
a  part  of  that  yoke,  from  which  the  spiritual  Israelites  were  delivered  by 
Christ.  It  is  strange,  then,  to  hear  Christians  speaking  of  it  as  a  spi- 
ritual privilege.  It  arises  from  the  same  spirit  that  in  the  apostolic 
age  made  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  so  prone  to  return  to  the  weak  and 
beggarly  elements.  He  must  be  a  babe  in  Christ,  who  cannot  see  how 
much  the  privileges  of  the  new  dispensation  exceed  those  of  the  old, 
without  taking  into  the  account  any  ordinance  in  the  room  of  circum- 
cision. The  church  of  Israel  had  the  circumcision  of  the  flesh, — the 
church  of  the  New  Testament  have  the  circumcision  of  the  heart.  Is 
not  this  an  immeasurable  enlargement  of  privileges?  The  child  of  the 
Christian  is  perfectly,  as  to  spiritual  things,  on  the  footing  of  the  chil- 
dren of  the  Jews,  for  circumcision  implied  nothing  to  them  individually. 
It  did  not  mark  them  as  the  children  of  God.  The  children  of  believers 
may  be  said,  in  one  point  of  view,  to  have  better  privileges,  for  they  have 
a  clearer  revelation.  They  possess  the  oracles  of  God  in  a  much  greater 
proportion  than  the  Jews  did.  Circumcision  secured  to  the  circumcised 
person  no  blessing  either  temporal  or  spiritual :  it  was  enforced  by  the 
penalty  of  death :  it  was  not  enjoined  on  all  Jeioish  children :  it  was  not 
enjoined  on  believers  in  other  nations ;  it  could  not,  then,  be  a  spiritual 
privilege  to  individuals.  The  edification  that  it  contained  was  as  avail- 
able to  females,  who  were  excluded  from  it,  as  to  the  males  on  whom  it 
was  enjoined. 

Nothing  can  more  clearly  prove  that  circumcision  had  no  personal 
application  to  the  circumcised  individual,  than  the  circumstance  that 
this  ordinance  was  inapplicable  to  females, — the  one  half  of  the  seed  of 
Israel.  Had  it  been  of  any  spiritual  advantage,  or  had  it  been  appointed 
to  mark  the  character  of  those  to  whom  it  was  applied,  would  females 
have  been  excluded  ?  Were  they  not  heirs  of  heaven  equally  with  the 
males?  Had  circumcision,  then,  been  appointed  to  designate  the  heirs 
of  the  everlasting  inheritance,  it  must  have  been  extended  to  females. 
It  is  said,  the  Abrahamic  covenant  contained  spiritual  blessings  :  infants 
had  its  seal;  why,  then,  shall  not  infants  have  baptism?  I  reply,  the 
one  half  of  Jewish  infants  had  not  the  seal,  which  demonstrates  that 
the  seal  had  no  personal  application  to  the  individual. 

It  is  said,  that  there  is  no  better  evidence  that  women  should  eat  the 
Lord's  supper,  than  there  is  that  infants  should  be  baptized.  Now,  were 
this  true,  what  is  the  consequence  ?  Not  that  we  should  baptize  infants, 
to  be  consistent  in  admitting  females  to  eat  the  Lord's  supper  ;  but  that 
females  should  be  excluded  from  the  Lord's  supper,  as  well  as  infants 
from  baptism.  This  is  the  popish  argument  to  induce  Protestants  to 
receive  the  traditions  of  the  Romish  church.  They  tell  us,  "  Ye  have 
changed  dipping  into  sprinkling  by  the  authority  of  the  church ;  ye  have 
no  better  authority  for  infant  baptism  itself:  why,  then,  do  ye  not  receive 
transubstantiation  on  the  same  authority?"     I  always  reply,  that  my 


232  THE    SUBJECTS    OF   BAPTISM. 

brethren  who  practise  infant  baptism,  do  not  ground  their  practice  on 
the  authority  of  the  church,  but  on  their  view  of  Scripture ;  and  that 
the  argument  is  false,  because  it  justifies  one  tradition  by  another.  They 
tell  us,  also,  that  we  have  no  authority  for  the  change  of  the  Sabbath, 
but  the  authority  of  the  church  ;  and  some  paedo-baptists  tell  us,  that  we 
have  no  better  authority  for  the  Lord's  day  than  for  infant  baptism.  I 
give  the  same  reply  to  both.  As  soon  as  I  am  convinced  that  this  is  the 
case,  I  will  give  up  the  Lord's  day.  Much  as  I  value  that  day,  I  will 
not  receive  a  cargo  of  Romish  trumpery  in  order  to  license  me  to  retain 
it.  If  the  Lord's  day  has  no  better  authority  than  the  tradition  of  the 
church,  or  the  arguments  that  support  infant  baptism,  let  it  fall.  But 
this  is  not  the  case.  The  Sabbath  rests  on  pillars  as  firm  as  those  of 
creation,  being  appointed  before  the  entrance  of  sin,  and  grounded  on 
reasons  that  are  as  lasting  as  the  world.  And  the  particular  day  is 
ascertained  in  the  New  Testament,  as  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and  the 
Lord's  day.  But  I  will  not  here  enter  into  proof,  because  it  has  nothing 
to  do  with  this  controversy.  Even  granting  that  it  has  no  better  proof 
than  infant  baptism,  the  latter  is  not  relieved.  In  like  manner,  if  there 
is  no  better  authority  for  the  eating  of  the  Lord's  supper  by  females, 
than  there  is  for  infant  baptism,  both  must  fall  together. 

But  they  who  make  this  objection,  must  have  read  the  Scriptures  with 
little  reflection.  That  women  did  eat  the  Lord's  supper,  there  is  the 
fullest  and  most  direct  evidence.  "  And  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
when  the  disciples  came  together  to  break  bread."  Acts  xx.  7.  Here  it 
is  said  of  the  disciples  without  any  exception,  that  they  came  together 
to  eat  the  Lord's  supper.  If,  then,  women  are  disciples  as  well  as  men, 
there  is  here  the  most  direct  evidence  that  they  ate  the  Lord's  supper. 
Paul  delivered  the  Lord's  supper  with  the  rest  of  the  ordinances  to  the 
church  at  Corinth,  without  exception,  1  Cor.  xi.  23 ;  if,  then,  there  were 
females  in  the  church,  they  are  included  equally  with  the  males.  That 
females  were  members  of  the  churches,  is  clear  from  the  same  chapter ; 
for  Paul  speaks  of  a  regulation  with  respect  to  them.  Besides,  from  the 
whole  account,  it  is  evident  that  all  in  the  church  are  equally  concerned 
in  eating  the  supper :  "  When  ye  come  together,  therefore,  into  one 
place,  this  is  not  to  eat  the  Lord's  supper."  This  shows  that  the 
primary  intention  of  their  meetings  was  to  eat  the  supper  ;  and  that  they 
partook  of  it  without  exception.  The  word  translated  man  also  in  the 
directions,  verses  28 — 34,  includes  both  male  and  female.  Besides,  it 
is  expressly  said,  that  under  this  dispensation,  there  is  neither  male  nor 
female. 

But  though  I  have  shown  that  there  is  direct  proof  that  women  ate 
the  Lord's  supper,  I  do  not  consider  that  this  is  necessary.  Had  I  no 
other  evidence  than  that  they  were  baptized,  I  should  consider  this 
perfectly  sufficient,  if  no  restriction  were  given  in  any  other  part  of 
Scripture.  I  do  not  object  to  inference ;  on  the  contrary,  I  receive 
what  is  made  out  by  inference,  just  as  I  receive  the  most  direct  state- 
ment. But  an  inference  is  not  a  guess,  or  conjecture,  or  probability,  or 
conceit,  drawn  at  random  ;  it  must  be  the  necessary  result  of  the  prin- 
ciple from  which  it  is  deduced.     If  it  is  not,  it  should  not  be  dignified 


THE    SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM.  233 

with  the  name  of  inference.  The  person  who  is  admitted  to  one  ordi- 
nance of  a  church,  is  admitted  to  all,  if  there  is  no  limitation.  Indeed, 
the  person  who  is  admitted  into  a  church,  must  have  all  the  ordinances 
of  the  church,  if  there  is  no  limitation.  Is  it  not  for  these  ordinances 
that  a  church  exists.  But  are  we  for  this  reason  to  infer,  that  as 
infants  under  the  Jewish  dispensation  received  circumcision,  a  rite  that 
supposed  no  character  in  the  person  circumcised,  they  should  under  the 
Christian  dispensation  receive  baptism,  which  supposes  that  all  baptized 
persons  are  washed  from  sin  through  the  belief  of  the  truth?  In  giving 
the  Lord's  supper,  had  any  directions  been  added  that  confined  it  to 
males,  as  the  commission  confines  baptism  to  believers,  then  no  inference 
could  establish  the  right  of  females.  There  is  not  the  smallest  similarity 
between  the  cases. 

It  is  often  said  that  the  Jewish  church  was  the  same  with  the 
Christian.  There  is  just  such  a  portion  of  truth  in  this  assertion,  as  to 
enable  it  to  impose  on  the  ignorant.  But  with  respect  to  every  thing 
which  can  concern  this  argument,  it  is  manifestly  false.  Is  the  Christian 
church  that  rejected  the  great  body  of  the  Jewish  nation,  the  same  with 
the  Jewish  church,  which,  by  God's  own  appointment,  contained  the 
whole  nation  ?  Was  the  church  into  which  its  members  were  born,  the 
same  with  the  church  whose  members  must  be  born  from  above, — 
born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man, 
but  of  God  ?  Was  the  church  that  admitted  every  stranger  to  its  pass- 
over,  without  any  condition  of  faith  or  character,  merely  on  complying 
with  a  certain  regulation  that  gave  circumcision  to  their  males,  without 
any  condition  of  faith  or  character,  the  same  with  the  church  that  re- 
quires faith  and  true  holiness  in  all  who  enjoy  its  ordinances?  Was  the 
church  that  contained  the  scribes,  and  Pharisees,  and  Sadducees, — the 
most  cruel,  determined,  open,  and  malignant  enemies  of  Christ, — the  same 
with  that  church  into  which  such  persons  could  not  enter  without  a 
spiritual  birth?  The  church  of  Israel  was  the  nation  of  Israel,  and  as 
a  whole  could  no  more  be  called  the  church  of  Christ,  in  the  sense  of 
that  phrase  in  the  New  Testament,  than  the  nation  of  England  can  be 
called  the  church  of  Christ.  It  is  said  that  a  similar  corruption  has 
taken  place  in  the  church  of  Christ.  But  this  observation  proceeds  on 
a  fundamental  mistake.  The  very  constitution  of  the  Jewish  church 
recognised  the  membership  of  carnal  persons.  It  did  not  make  the 
distinction  between  those  born  after  the  flesh,  and  those  born  after  the 
Spirit.  There  was  no  law  to  exclude  the  Pharisees,  or  even  the  Saddu- 
cees, from  the  Jewish  church.  Their  doctrines  and  practices  were 
condemned  by  the  Old  Testament ;  but  it  was  no  corruption  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  church  to  contain  them.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
constitution  of  the  churches  of  Christ  rejects  such  persons,  and  provides 
for  their  expulsion.  It  is  a  corruption  of  the  church  that  receives  or 
retains  them.  The  distinction  between  the  two  cases  is  as  wide  as  the 
distance  between  earth  and  heaven. 

As  to  the  ordinances  of  the  Jewish  church,  they  are  all  abolished. 
Christ  himself,  when  on  earth,  could  not  be  a  priest  in  it,  but  he  is  the 
only  priest  of  the  Christian  church.  "  For  the  priesthood  being  changed, 

30 


234  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

there  is  made  of  necessity  a  change  also  of  the  law."  Whatever  unity 
may  be  supposed  to  be  in  the  Jewish  church  and  the  church  of  the  New 
Testament,  it  does  not  consist  in  sameness  of  members,  or  of  ordinances. 
The  one,  by  its  constitution,  included  carnal  members ;  the  other,  by  its 
constitution,  admits  spiritual  members  only.  This,  then,  is  the  only 
point  of  view  in  which  the  subject  can  have  any  reference  to  the  contro- 
versy on  baptism.  This  difference  existing,  no  number  of  points  of 
coincidence  can  avail  our  opponents. 

The  church  of  Israel  was  the  type  of  the  church  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, containing  no  doubt  the  body  of  the  people  of  God  at  that  time  on 
the  earth,  and  in  this  point  of  view,  may  be  called  the  same.  Both  are 
called  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  both  were  such,  but  in  a  different  sense. 
The  one  was  a  kingdom  of  this  world ;  the  other  is  a  kingdom  not  of 
this  world.  God's  kingdom  of  Israel  contained  many  who  did  not  belong 
to  his  spiritual  kingdom ;  and  some  belonged  to  his  spiritual  kingdom, 
who  did  not  belong  to  the  typical  kingdom.  All  the  believers  belong 
to  the  church  of  Christ,  but  all  believers  did  not  belong  to  the  church 
of  Israel. 

As  the  church  of  Israel  was  the  church  of  God,  typical  of  his  true 
church,  and  containing  in  every  successive  age  a  remnant  of  the  spiritual 
seed  of  Abraham,  according  to  the  election  of  grace,  the  New  Testament 
church  is  spoken  of  in  the  Old  under  the  figure  of  Israel,  Zion,  Jeru- 
salem, God's  holy  mountain,  the  tabernacle  of  David,  &c.  &c.  This 
cannot  possibly  apply  literally,  and  is  explained  by  the  apostles  as 
referring  to  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles.  In  like  manner,  the  book  of 
Revelation  speaks  of  measuring  the  temple.  The  reality  is  spoken  of 
under  the  name  of  that  which  was  its  type.  The  restoration  of  the  Jews, 
also,  is  spoken  of  as  a  re-union  into  their  own  olive-tree.  A  correct 
view  of  this  peculiarity  is  of  great  importance,  and  I  perceive  that  it  is 
very  much  misunderstood  by  our  opponents ;  but  as  it  has  no  concern 
with  this  controversy,  I  will  not  enter  on  any  discussion  foreign  to  my 
subject.  As  to  this  controversy,  I  care  not  what  sameness  our  opponents 
may  pretend  to  find  between  the  church  of  Israel  and  the  church  of 
Christ,  as  long  as  they  are  different  in  members  and  ordinances. 

9.  My  ninth  observation  is,  that  baptism  is  not  the  seal  of  the  new 
covenant.  That  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  are  seals  of  the  cove- 
nant, is  a  doctrine  so  common,  and  a  phraseology  so  established,  that  it 
is  received  without  question  as  a  first  principle.  They  who  measure 
truth  by  the  attainments  of  our  ancestors,  look  upon  the  questioning  of 
this  dogma  as  a  kind  of  impiety  and  heresy ;  and  even  the  modern 
Independents,  who  have  professed  to  be  guided  solely  by  the  Bible,  have 
very  generally  continued  to  speak  in  the  same  language.  While  I 
highly  respect  and  value  the  ancient  writers  who  speak  in  this  manner, 
I  strongly  protest  against  it  as  unscriptural,  and  as  laying  a  foundation 
for  receiving  other  things  on  the  authority  of  man.  Let  our  ancestors 
have  all  the  esteem  and  gratitude  to  which  they  are  entitled, — but  that 
esteem  is  much  misplaced,  if  it  leads  us  to  follow  them  in  anything  in 
which  they  have  not  followed  Christ.  In  many  things  their  attainments 
were  great,  and  their  writings  are  worthy  of  the  most  careful  study; 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  235 

but  in  some  things  they  were  mistaken,  and  reverence  for  them  ought 
not  to  induce  us  to  receive  their  errors.     It  is  disgraceful  to  Christians, 
that  they  continue  to  hold  the  errors  of  their  unworthy  ancestors,  and 
to  feel  a  reverence  for  the  unscriptural  phraseology  of  ancient  divines, 
similar  to  that  of  the  Pharisees  for  the  traditions  of  the  elders.     Is  there 
any  Jewish  tradition  more  void  of  scriptural  authority,  tkan  that  which 
designates  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  seals  of  the  new  covenant  ? 
There  is  not  in  the  New  Testament  any  single  portion  that  can  bear 
such  a  meaning.     And  what  can  the  wisest  of  men  know  about  these 
things,  but  what  God  has  told  us?     He  has  not  said  that  baptism  is  a 
seal.     Circumcision  was  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  of 
Abraham.     This  was  God's  seal  to  the  truth,  till  the  letter  was  abolished. 
The  Spirit  of  truth  is  the  seal,  and  the  circumcision  of  the  heart  by 
him  is  the  thing  signified  by  circumcision  in  the  flesh.     The  circumcised 
nation  was  typical  of  the  church  of  Christ,  for  the  apostle  says,  "  we  are 
the  circumcision,  which  worship  God  in  the  spirit ;"  and  "  circumcision 
is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter."     The  circum- 
cision of  the  Jews  was  the  letter,  of  which  the  circumcision  of  the  heart 
in  Christians  is  the  spirit.     The  Christian,  then,  has  a  more  exalted 
seal  than  circumcision — he  has  the  Spirit  of  God,  "  whereby  he  is  sealed 
unto  the  day  of  redemption."     Ephes.  iv.  30.     When  sinners  believe  in 
Christ,  they  are  sealed  with  that  Holy  Spirit  of  promise,  which  is  "  the 
earnest  of  their  inheritance  until  the  redemption  of  the  purchased  pos- 
session."    Eph.  i.  13.     The  seal,  then,  that  comes  in  the  room  of  cir- 
cumcision, is  the  seal  of  the  Spirit.     Circumcision  sealed  God's  truth 
to  Abraham,  and  all  who  ever  shall  have  the  faith  of  Abraham.     It  was 
applied  to  the  typical  nation  without  respect  to  character ;  but  the  seal 
of  the  Spirit  is  applied  to  none  but  believers,  and  to  believers  of  all 
nations  as  well  as  Jews.     When  the  Holy  Spirit  himself,  in  the  heart  of 
the  believer,  is  the  seal  of  God's  truth,  there  is  no  need  of  any  other 
seal.     Baptism  represents  the  belief  of  the  truth  in  a  figure,  and  takes 
it  for  granted  that  they  are  believers  to  whom  it  is  applied — but  it  is  no 
seal  of  this.     They  may  appear  to  be  Christians  to-day,  and  therefore 
ought  to  be  baptized;    to-morrow  they  may  prove  the  contrary,  and 
therefore  they  cannot  have  been  sealed  by  baptism.     He  that  is  once 
sealed  by  the  Spirit,  is  secured  to  eternity. 

10.  My  last  observation  is,  that  to  place  the  grounds  of  infant  baptism 
on  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  is  to  make  intelligent  obedience  impossible 
to  most  Christians.  If  no  believer  can  know  what  the  Lord  requires  in 
this  matter,  till  he  understands  the  covenant  of  Abraham,  very  many 
could  not  act  at  all.  Can  any  man  think  that  God  would  leave  the 
grounds  of  this  duty  so  enveloped  in  darkness?  When  the  most  illite- 
rate heathen,  or  the  most  ignorant  savage,  believes  the  Gospel,  five 
minutes  will  be  enough  to  prove  to  him  the  duty  of  being  baptized  as  a 
believer.  But  if  he  has  children,  when  will  he  be  able  to  baptize  them 
by  his  knowledge  of  the  covenant  of  Abraham  ?  The  most  acute  writers 
who  have  been  all  their  lives  engaged  in  the  study  of  it,  and  in  defence 
of  infant  baptism  from  it,  are  not  able  to  keep  themselves  from  speaking 
in  many  things  like  children.     And  after  all  their  striving,  they  have 


/ 


236  THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

not  been  able  to  make  out  a  consistent  scheme.  It  is  only  the  preju- 
dices of  the  public,  which  are  universally  and  strongly  in  their  favour, 
that  screen  them  from  the  ridicule  of  the  most  childish  trifling.  Many 
of  themselves,  after  wasting  perhaps  a  quarter  of  a  century  in  adjusting 
a  scheme,  are  obliged  to  tear  it  down  with  their  own  hands.  In  my 
ignorance,  I  made  the  attempt,  as  well  as  others ;  but  I  found  I  must 
either  give  up  the  Bible,  or  give  up  infant  baptism.  If,  then,  it  is  so 
difficult  a  thing,  to  make  out  a  plausible  case  in  defence  of  infant 
baptism  from  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  even  with  all  the  advantages 
that  constant  study  affords,  what  must  be  the  situation  of  the  newly 
converted  pagan  !  Has  God  left  him  in  such  a  condition  that  he  cannot 
know  whether  he  ought  to  baptize  his  children,  till  he  can  penetrate  the 
deep  recesses  of  the  covenant  of  Abraham  1  Mr.  Ewing  complains  that 
many  persons  go  over  from  the  Independent  churches  to  the  Baptists, 
before  they  are  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  subject.  Now  this  may 
be  true,  if  he  means  that  they  are  not  able  to  discuss  with  him  the 
popping  system,  or  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  But  it  is  not  true,  as 
respects  the  knowledge  of  the  scriptural  grounds  for  that  ordinance. 
Five  minutes  are  sufficient  to  convince  any  man,  who  is  open  to  convic- 
tion, and  who  comes  to  the  Scriptures  like  a  little  child.  I  have  written 
a  large  book  to  prove  what  I  believe  might  be  clearly  pointed  out  in  a 
few  minutes,  if  all  the  disciples  of  Christ  had  in  all  things  the  teachable- 
ness of  a  little  child.  Every  believer  must  be  as  a  little  child ;  he 
cannot  receive  the  truth  but  as  a  little  child.  But  it  is  only  with  respect 
to  the  truth  itself,  that  all  Christians  are  of  this  character.  With  respect 
to  any  thing  in  which  we  are  not  taught  by  the  Spirit,  we  are  as  un- 
teachable  and  perverse  as  the  world.  Christ's  institutions,  therefore,  it 
is  much  to  be  lamented,  are  despised  and  corrupted,  even  by  his  own 
children.  How  soon  was  the  Lord's  supper  corrupted  by  the  church  at 
Corinth !  And  by  our  long  sojourning  in  Babylon,  we  have  been  so 
accustomed  to  speak  her  language,  that  we  have  in  a  great  measure  cor- 
rupted our  own.  Babylonish  words,  Babylonish  accent,  Babylonish 
rites,  may  still  be  discovered  in  the  school  of  Christ. 

There  is  not  one  of  all  the  ordinances  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that 
has  been  left  untouched  by  the  wisdom  of  man.  Some  of  them  have 
been  abandoned  as  worn  out  by  time  :  others  of  them  have  been  entirely 
new-modelled,  so  that  not  a  feature  of  them  remains  as  it  came  from 
his  hand :  and  many  things  have  been  added,  of  which  no  vestige  is 
found  in  the  word  of  God.  Baptism  has  been  changed  both  in  its  form 
and  in  its  subjects ;  and  it  is  lamentable  to  observe,  with  what  perverse- 
ness  even  Christians  cling  to  the  innovations.  In  this  we  see  remarkably 
fulfilled  what  our  Lord  charges  on  the  Pharisees.  The  commandment 
of  God  requires  children,  to  support  their  parents  when  destitute,  but  the 
Pharisees  delivered  men  from  this  commandment  by  substituting  some- 
thing for  it.  "  Thus,"  says  Christ,  "  have  ye  made  the  commandment  of 
God  of  none  effect  by  your  tradition."  Matt.  xv.  6.  Now,  the  like  has 
taken  place  with  respect  to  baptism.  The  ordinance  that  Jesus  appointed 
was  an  immersion  in  water,  as  a  figure  of  the  death,  burial,  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  and  of  the  believer  with  him.     The  wisdom  of  man 


THE  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM.  237 

has  changed  immersion  into  pouring  or  sprinkling  a  little  water  on  the 
face,  without  any  reference  to  death,  burial,  and  resurrection.  This  is 
the  substitute  for  the  Lord's  commandment.  Is  not  this  the  very  thing 
that  Christ  charges  on  the  Pharisees  ?  The  Pharisees  told  their  disci- 
ples that  the  corban  or  gift  would  be  a  substitute  for  obeying  the  com- 
mandment of  God ;  and  we  are  told,  that  though  immersion  was  the 
original  mode  of  baptism,  yet  pouring  or  sprinkling  will  answer  the  same 
end,  and  be  sufficient  for  baptism.  Others  whose  principles  will  not 
allow  them  the  use  of  this  antichristian  liberty,  do  still  greater  violence 
to  the  Scriptures,  by  forcing  them  to  speak  what  they  wish.  Ah,  my 
fellow-Christians,  why  will  ye  follow  the  Pharisees  in  making  void  the 
commandment  of  God  ? 

In  like  manner,  the  invention  of  man  in  baptizing  infants  has  totally 
set  aside  the  ordinance  of  God.  Jesus  commands  believers  to  be  bap- 
tized ;  but  since  the  Pharisees  have  introduced  infant  baptism,  Christ's 
baptism  is  not  known,  so  far  as  the  other  extends.  The  baptizing  of 
persons  in  infancy  is  made  to  stand  as  a  substitute  for  the  baptism  of 
believers,  which  Christ  appointed.  Christ's  ordinance,  then,  has  been 
totally  abolished,  and  a  human  invention  both  in  mode  and  subjects  has 
taken  its  name.  So  true  it  is  that  every  invention  of  man  in  the  things 
of  God,  has  a  tendency  to  supplant  some  part  of  Divine  truth. 

Section  IV. — Thus  have  we  seen,  from  the  most  impartial  examina- 
tion, that  infant  baptism  has  not  in  the  word  of  God  an  inch  of  solid 
ground  on  which  to  stand.  The  apostolic  commission  commands  the 
baptism  of  believers,  and  of  believers  only.  No  lawful  interpretation 
can  introduce  infants  into  that  commission,  or  give  authority  to  dispense 
with  the  baptizing  of  believers.  No  instance  of  the  baptism  of  an  infant 
is  to  be  found  among  the  documents  of  the  apostolic  practice.  A  child 
may  perceive  the  insufficiency  of  the  argument  from  the  households. 
The  Abrahamic  covenant  has  no  bearing  on  this  subject.  Baptism,  I 
have  shown  to  be  immersion,  by  a  strength  of  evidence  that  no  true 
scholar — no  sound  critic — will  ever  attempt  to  overturn.  Let  the  child- 
ren of  God  renounce  the  traditions  of  men ;  let  them  submit  with  hu- 
mility and  with  gratitude  to  the  ordinance  of  Christ.  In  the  keeping 
of  his  commandments,  there  is  a  great  reward.  "  He  that  hath  my 
commandments,  and  keepeth  them,  he  it  is  that  loveth  me,  and  I  will 
love  him,  and  will  manifest  myself  unto  him.  This  is  the  love  of  God, 
that  ye  keep  his  commandments. — Why  call  ye  me,  Lord,  Lord,  and  do 
not  the  things  that  I  say?" 


CHAPTER  IV. 

REPLY  TO  REMARKS  ON  MR.  CARSON'S  TREATISE  ON  BAPTISM,  CONTAINED 
IN  A  NOTE  IN  MR.  BICKERSTETH's  LATE  WORK  ON  THE  SAME  SUBJECT. 

Section  I. — In  religious  controversy  it  is  a  great  advantage  to  have 
an  opponent  who  is  under  the  influence  of  the  fear  of  God,  and  who  can 
be  viewed  as  writing  with  a  paramount  regard  to  the  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture. With  many  controversialists  the  object  evidently  is,  not  to  ascer- 
tain, with  exactness  and  certainty,  the  testimony  of  God ;  but  with  all 
licentiousness  to  exert  ingenuity  to  defend  the  cause  they  have  espoused, 
and  evade  the  conclusions  of  their  antagonists.  The  aim  is  to  defend  a 
favourite  cause  and  put  down  opposition  ;  not  to  search  for  truth,  and 
exhibit  it  with  evidence.  To  avoid  reprehending  such  writers  with 
severity,  is  neither  possible  nor  warrantable.  The  artifices  of  sophistry 
are  as  dishonest  as  those  of  pickpockets  or  swindlers,  and  they  are  much 
more  injurious  to  the  interests  of  mankind.  The  delinquents  ought  not 
only  to  be  obliged  to  restore  what  they  have  unjustly  taken  away;  but 
to  suffer  exemplary  punishment  as  a  warning  to  others. 

On  the  present  occasion  I  am  peculiarly  favoured,  in  having  an  oppo- 
nent whom  I  respect  and  love  for  the  truth's  sake  that  dwelleth  in  him  ; 
and  it  is  my  resolution  not  to  sink  the  probe  a  hair's  breadth  more 
deeply  than  the  cure  of  the  wound  requires.  Mr.  Bickersteth  I  believe 
to  be  eminently  a  man  of  God.  But  I  must  defend  truth  at  every  expense. 
I  shall  know  no  man  who  opposes  it.  The  word  of  God  is  my  only  stand- 
ard. It  would  be  much  more  agreeable  to  my  feelings,  and  more  ad- 
vantageous to  my  interest,  to  write  only  on  such  subjects  as  would  meet 
the  approbation  of  the  great  body  of  Christians.  Yet  with  the  full  fore- 
sight of  all  the  unpopularity  that  attends  opposition  to  popular  errors,  I 
have  often  come  forward  to  the  support  of  injured  truth.  It  is  in  itself 
a  grievous  thing,  that  the  time  and  talents  of  God's  people,  instead  of 
being  wholly  employed  against  the  common  enemy,  for  the  advancement 
of  the  common  faith,  should  be  employed  in  opposing  each  other;  but 
while  error  is  to  be  found  among  them,  the  thing  is  unavoidable.  It 
may  be  afflictive  to  us,  but  the  God  of  wisdom  must  have  some  wise  pur- 
pose to  serve  by  it. 

The  remarks  on  my  Treatise  on  Baptism,  which  are  contained  in  a 
note  in  a  work  on  the  same  subject  by  Mr.  Bickersteth,  he  tells  Us  are 
238 


REPLY   TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH.  239 

from  the  pen  of  a  friend.  But  as  Mr.  Bickersteth  has  identified  himself 
with  his  friend,  by  publishing  the  remarks  in  his  book,  I  shall  make  him 
accountable  for  every  thing  in  them.  As  I  have  not  yet  read  a  line  of 
Mr.  Bickersteth's  work,  except  the  appendix,  I  shall  confine  my  obser- 
vations to  the  remarks  of  his  friend. 

"  Mr.  C.  treats  in  his  work,"  says  the  writer,  "first  of  the  mode,  and 
next  of  the  subjects  of  baptism.  The  choice  of  this  order  is  itself  in- 
structive. The  main  topic  is  made  secondary  to  one  quite  subordinate." 
I  am  the  most  successful  author  that  ever  wrote  a  book.  Most  authors 
are  very  well  contented  if  they  yield  instruction  in  the  things  in  which 
they  intend  to  instruct.  But  it  is  my  privilege,  it  seems,  to  yield 
instruction  utterly  beyond  the  bounds  of  my  contemplation.  To  express 
an  opinion,  with  respect  to  the  comparative  importance  of  the  mode  and 
of  the  subjects  of  baptism,  by  the  order  of  treating  them,  never  once 
crossed  my  mind.  I  chose  this  order  merely  as  the  most  natural.  It  is 
surely  natural  to  treat  of  the  meaning  of  a  word,  before  treating  of  the 
persons  to  whom  the  thing  meant  is  applicable.  I  believe  it  is  not 
unusual  for  writers  on  both  sides  of  the  question  to  follow  this  order. 
But  if  any  one  chooses  to  follow  a  different  order,  I  have  not  the 
slightest  objection.  I  am  just  like  the  preacher,  who,  in  expounding 
Peter's  address  to  the  lame  man  whom  he  was  about  to  heal,  said,  "My 
friends,  this  may  with  equal  propriety  be  translated  either  silver  and 
gold,  or  gold  and  silver."  Indeed,  many  would  choose  to  handle  the 
most  important  part  of  the  subject  last,  that  it  might  leave  the  stronger 
impression.  In  oratory,  some  choose  to  urge  the  strongest  grounds  first, 
while  others  prefer  placing  them  last.  Had  I  thought  it  useful  to  express 
an  opinion  as  to  the  comparative  importance  of  the  mode  and  of  the  sub- 
jects of  baptism,  I  would  not  have  accomplished  the  thing  by  insinua- 
tion, or  indirectly ;  I  have  confidence  enough  to  state  my  meaning  in 
direct  terms.  Instead  of  designing  to  draw  peculiar  attention  to  the 
importance  of  the  mode,  I  consider  both  mode  and  subjects  altogether 
essential  to  the  very  existence  of  this  ordinance.  If  the  thing  signified 
by  the  word,  whatever  that  may  be,  is  not  performed  on  the  subjects,  it 
cannot  be  baptism  ;  for  what  is  baptism  but  the  thing  signified  by  the 
word?  If  the  persons  baptized  are  not  the  persons  appointed  to  be  bap- 
tized, it  cannot  be  Christian  baptism,  although  in  mode  it  may  be  per- 
fectly correct;  for  Christian  baptism  is  not  every  immersion  of  persons, 
but  an  immersion  of  certain  persons  for  a  certain  purpose. 

In  my  turn  I  shall  say,  and  for  the  truth  of  the  observation  I  appeal 
to  every  impartial  reader,  that  this  assertion  of  the  writer  is  very 
instructive.  It  shows  most  clearly  that  he  is  deeply  prejudiced,  and 
that  he  looks  at  evidence  through  a  perverted  medium.  He  sees  goblins 
which  have  no  existence,  but  in  his  own  disordered  imagination.  Is 
it  to  be  wondered  that  such  a  person  should  see  infant  sprinkling  in 
Scripture,  when  he  sees  in  my  work  an  opinion  expressed  which  never 
occurred  to  myself?  Had  I  lived  in  former  times,  and  had  the  writer 
been  giving  an  account  of  my  sentiments  on  baptism,  he  would  have 
represented  me  as  holding  the  opinion  referred  to.  I  can  believe  he  is 
sincere  in  taking  such  a  meaning  from  the  order  of  treating  the  subject ; 


240  REPLY    TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH. 

but  verily  it  is  only  at  the  expense  of  his  judgment  that  I  am  able  to 
exert  so  much  charity. 

"  This,"  continues  the  writer,  "  is  the  common  tendency  in  the  vehe- 
ment advocate  of  his  views."  Not  only,  it  seems,  is  the  opinion  of 
comparative  importance  expressed  by  the  order  of  treatment,  but  it  is 
vehemence  that  originates  this  opinion.  Is  this  assertion  founded  on 
evidence?  May  not  such  an  opinion  be  both  entertained  and  expressed 
by  the  coolest  advocate  of  the  doctrine  ?  The  writer  has  expressed  an 
opinion  of  the  comparative  importance  of  the  subjects.  Is  this  to  be 
ascribed  to  vehemence? 

I  have  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  the  strongest  and  most  decided 
views ;  but  I  have  no  disproportionate  zeal  for  the  mode  over  that  of 
the  subjects,  nor  for  both  mode  and  subjects  over  other  things.  I  never 
make  them  the  standard  for  estimating  a  man's  Christianity,  nor  even 
for  his  advancement  in  the  Divine  life.  I  am  sure  that  Mr.  Bickersteth 
and  I  are  more  united  in  the  things  which  we  both  believe  to  be  of  the 
greatest  importance,  than  we  are  with  many  who  may  agree  with  us 
respectively  as  to  the  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism.  The  faith  of  the 
Gospel,  and  that  only,  I  recognise  as  the  bond  of  union  among  Christians. 
Is  it,  then,  in  the  spirit  of  a  Christian  to  insinuate  that,  with  respect  to  my 
views  of  baptism,  "  the  ritual  prevails  over  the  personal,  the  tone  of  the 
Jew  replaces  the  spirit  of  the  Christian  ?"  Can  there  be  a  more  ground- 
less calumny  ?  I  set  no  value  on  a  rite  separate  from  the  import  of  it. 
Is  it  wise  in  the  Church  of  England  to  tax  its  neighbours  with  too  great 
attention  to  rites?  The  rites  of  God's  appointment  lvalue  most  highly: 
but  I  value  them  only  as  they  are  applied  to  the  persons  for  whom  God 
appointed  them,  and  for  the  purpose  for  which  God  appointed  them. 
Were  all  the  people  of  England  to  ask  me  to  baptize  them,  I  would  not 
baptize  an  individual  but  those  appointed  by  Christ  to  be  baptized. 
The  mere  rite  could  profit  them  nothing.  In  urging  compliance  with 
the  appointments  of  Christ,  I  never  distinguish  between  things  of  a 
ritual  nature  and  other  things.  All  things  commanded  by  Christ 
demand  equal  obedience.  It  is  enough  for  me  to  know  that  Christ  has 
commanded  immersion.  Were  it  the  very  least  of  all  his  command- 
ments, it  is  to  me  better  than  life.  This  is  the  spirit  with  which  I  read 
the  Scriptures.  I  never  balance  the  importance  of  different  things, 
with  a  view  to  keep  the  one  and  violate  the  other.  Every  thing  that 
God  commands  is  important,  and  bonds  and  death  ought  to  be  endured 
rather  than  disobey. 

Here,  then,  Mr.  Bickersteth,  I  charge  your  conscience  as  a  Christian. 
You  have  identified  yourself  with  your  friend,  by  adopting  his  remarks. 
I  ask  you  before  God,  whether  you  think  that  the  order  of  handling 
the  subject  of  baptism,  with  respect  to  mode  and  subjects,  indicates  an 
opinion  of  superiority  of  importance — whether  you  believe  that  such  an 
opinion  indicates  vehemence,  and  whether  you  think  it  indicates  a  Jewish 
tone,  and  the  absence  of  a  Christian  spirit?  You  must  give  an  account 
of  these  reckless  insinuations.  It  is  a  very  inauspicious  commencement 
to  begin  with  calumny.  "In  the  former  part,"  says  Mr.  Bickersteth's 
friend,  "  Mr.  C.  replies  to  Mr.  Ewing  and  Dr.  Wardlaw,  two  Independent 


REPLY    TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH.  241 

ministers,  advocates  of  pa^do-baptism,  and  the  latter  of  them  well  known 
by  other  works.  Mr.  Ewing  had  advanced  a  strange  theory  of  the  deri- 
vation of  the  Greek  word  bapto,  from  which  he  inferred  that  both  the 
word  itself  and  its  derivative  baptizo,  apply  in  their  native  meaning, 
alike  to  dipping,  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  or  any  application  of  water. 
He  maintained  further,  that  immersion  was  not  commonly,  if  at  all,  used 
in  the  baptisms  mentioned  in  Scripture.  This  no  sound  critic  would 
maintain,  and  no  consistent  churchman  is  called  upon  to  believe.  Mr. 
C.  refutes  effectively  these  positions  of  Mr.  Ewing ;  but  the  conclusions 
he  establishes,  so  far  from  proving  his  point,  that  immersion  is  essential 
to  Christian  baptism,  really  prove  the  exact  reverse.  A  few  words  will 
briefly  explain  this."  However  wild  and  extravagant  are  Mr.  Ewing's 
criticisms  on  the  origin  and  use  of  the  word  in  dispute,  they  were  at  the 
time  lauded  as  triumphant  and  unanswerable  by  the  reviews  and  the 
periodical  press.  The  reviewers  now,  I  am  told,  are  boasting  of  the 
exploits  performed  in  this  note.  If  I  have  refuted  effectively  the  posi- 
tions of  Mr.  Ewing,  I  pledge  myself  to  refute  as  effectively  the  positions 
of  this  writer.  He  says,  that  the  conclusions  which  I  have  established, 
so  far  from  proving  my  point,  that  immersion  is  essential  to  Christian 
baptism,  really  prove  the  exact  reverse.  Here  now  my  antagonist  and 
I  are  fairly  at  issue.  If  I  do  not,  without  stressing  a  muscle,  put  him 
under  my  feet,  I  will  consent  to  forfeit  all  pretensions  to  critical 
acumen. 

In  the  mean  time,  I  call  on  the  reader  to  observe  an  expression  in  the 
above  extract.  The  writer  tells  us  that  no  consistent  churchman  is 
bound  to  believe  Mr.  Ewing's  doctrine.  In  their  deviations  from  truth 
on  this  subject,  there  is  a  great  difference  among  the  different  sects,  and 
every  one  is  careful  to  admit  no  more  truth  than  what  is  consistent  with 
his  sect.  It  reminds  me  of  the  reply  of  the  chief  priests  and  the  elders 
to  the  question  of  Christ  with  respect  to  the  baptism  of  John.  "  The 
baptism  of  John,  whence  was  it?  from  heaven,  or  from  men?  And 
they  reasoned  among  themselves,  saying,  If  we  shall  say,  From  heaven,  he 
will  say  unto  us,  Why  did  ye  not  then  believe  him?  But  if  we  shall 
say,  Of  men,  we  fear  the  people ;  for  all  hold  John  as  a  prophet.  And 
they  answered  Jesus,  and  said,  We  cannot  tell."  Now  about  the  meaning 
of  the  word  baptism,  ask  the  Roman  Catholic  authorities,  and  they  will 
at  once  without  hesitation  on  this  matter,  freely  confess  the  truth ; 
because  their  church  has  power  to  enact  and  annul.  Ask  the  church  of 
England  the  same  question,  and  it  comes  very  near  the  truth;  for  it  has 
sufficient  power  to  effect  such  a  change  for  wise  and  pious  purposes 
Ask  others,  whose  principles  bind  them  to  scripture  authority  exclusively, 
and  they  will  force  the  word  to  signify  pour,  or  sprinkle,  or  pop,  or  purify, 
or  wash,  or  make  a  wash  upon,  or  perform  a  water  ceremony,  or  some- 
thing that  will  bring  the  usual  mode  of  practice  within  the  meaning  of 
the  word.  But  ask  the  Bible  Society,  which  must  reconcile  the  jarring 
claims  of  all  parties,  and  they  will  boldly  answer  with  the  chief  priests, 
We  cannot  tell  what  it  means.  It  is  utterly  impossible  to  translate  it  ; 
transference  is  the  only  means  of  union. 

The  numerous  and  conflicting  meanings  assigned  to  this  word  by 

31 


242  REPLY    TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH. 

persons  who  in  practice  are  all  identified,  afford  a  self-evidence  that  they 
are  all  in  error.  As  their  practice  is  the  same,  it  is  evidently  their 
interest  to  rest  it  on  the  same  ground ;  and  there  is  nothing  to  lead  any 
of  them  to  reject  a  sufficient  foundation,  if  any  such  could  be  found. 
With  all  their  differences,  they  are  willing  enough  to  avail  themselves  of 
common  ground,  as  far  as  they  think  it  possible.  What  is  the  reason, 
then,  that,  with  a  common  interest,  they  cannot  agree  in  a  common 
meaning?  The  reason  obviously  is,  that  no  meaning  has  ever  been 
given  by  any  of  them,  which  is  really  and  perfectly  satisfactory  even  to 
themselves.  They  are  then  constantly  on  the  look-out  for  something 
new,  and  something  that  will  answer  more  effectually  than  anything 
hitherto  alleged.  Sprinkle  and  pour  have  been  obliged  to  retire,  and 
various  new  meanings  successively  take  their  place,  and  maintain  au- 
thority for  a  time.  Mr.  Ewing's  pop,  however  ridiculous  it  may  appear 
to  Mr.  Bickersteth's  friend  and  to  me,  was  lauded  with  loudest  acclama- 
tions at  the  time.  But  poor  pop  has  now  been  obliged  to  retire  in  dis- 
grace, branded  with  reprobation  even  by  the  friends  of  sprinkling.  It 
looked  very  handsome  when  it  came  into  life;  but  Dr.  Cox  and  I  applied 
the  dissecting  knife,  and  the  skeleton,  as  it  may  be  seen  in  the  museum, 
is  very  hideous.  President  Beecher,  an  American  writer,  has  lately 
found  that  purify  is  the  proper  meaning  of  the  term,  and  I  am  told  that 
this  is  looked  on  as  absolute  demonstration. 

Now,  I  ask  philosophy,  what  can  be  the  reason  of  the  never-ending 
variation  in  assigning  meaning  to  this  word?  Can  it  be  anything  else, 
but  that  no  meaning  can  be  given  which  is  at  once  true  and  suitable  ? 
Let  it  be  observed,  that  it  is  not  variation  in  the  medium  of  proof,  but 
variation  in  the  very  meaning  of  the  term.  The  sprinklers  are  evidently 
like  the  infidel  Jews,  who,  rejecting  the  true  Messiah,  are  ever  looking 
out  for  one,  and  are  deceived  with  every  impostor.  Pop  rises  in  the 
secret  chamber  in  Glasgow,  and  for  a  time  leads  away  the  world :  purify 
has  spoken  from  the  wilderness  in  America,  and  harbingers  are  found  to 
usher  it  into  Britain.  Will  the  time  never  come  when  God's  people  will 
submit  to  his  commandments  with  the  docility  of  little  children  ? 

Section  II. — "  First,"  says  the  writer,  "  let  us  state  the  exact  question 
in  dispute.  The  Baptist  maintains  that  the  word  baptizo,  in  its  proper 
classic  usage,  means  to  dip  or  immerse  only.  He  further  asserts,  that 
when  applied  to  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  this  idea  of  a  specific  mode 
remains  so  essential,  that  without  it  the  ordinance  is  void."  This  is  a 
very  circuitous  statement  of  the  question  at  issue.  The  simple  question 
is,  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  ?  When  this  is  ascertained,  the 
question  is  settled.  But  I  will  follow  the  author  in  his  statement.  He 
tells  us  that  the  Baptist  asserts,  that  when  the  word  is  applied  to  an 
ordinance  of  Christ,  the  idea  of  a  specific  mode  remains  so  essential,  that 
without  it  the  ordinance  is  void.  He  should  have  stated  the  thing  still 
more  strongly.  I  would  not  say  that  without  immersion  the  ordinance 
of  baptism  is  void.  Without  immersion  it  is  not  the  ordinance  at  all :  it 
may  be  a  very  solemn  ceremony ;  but  it  is  a  ceremony  of  human  invention. 
It  may  be  believed  by  the  Lord's  people  to  be  an  ordinance  of  Christ ; 


REPLY    TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH.  243 

but  this  does  not  make  it  an  ordinance  of  Christ.  If  the  word  signifies 
immersion,  can  there  be  baptism  where  there  is  no  immersion?  This 
would  be  immersion  without  immersion.  Grant,  as  the  writer  does,  that 
the  meaning  of  the  word,  when  first  applied,  was  immersion,  that  nothing 
but  immersion  is  baptism  is  a  self-evident  truth.  The  contrary  is  a 
contradiction.  Whatever  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  at  the  time  of  its 
first  application  to  the  ordinance,  must  be  essential  to  the  ordinance ; 
for  the  ordinance  is  expressed  by  the  word.  If  a  specific  mode  was 
contained  in  the  word  when  first  applied  to  the  ordinance,  a  specific 
mode  must  for  ever  remain  in  it ;  for  whatever  change  may  take  place 
afterwards  in  the  meaning  of  the  word,  it  can  have  no  change  with 
reference  to  Christ's  ordinance.  What  he  enjoined  must  remain  as  he 
enjoined  it.  Now  the  word  when  first  applied  to  this  ordinance,  not 
only  contained  a  specific  mode,  but  it  expressed  nothing  but  a  specific 
mode.     Mode  was  its  very  essence. 

I  may  be  told,  that  on  my  own  principles  it  is  possible  that  the  word 
in  the  progress  of  its  use  might  change  its  meaning.  I  admit  this.  I 
have  proved  the  fact  with  respect  to  other  words ;  and  what  has  been 
effected  with  respect  to  others,  is  possible  with  this.  I  do  not  recede  a 
tittle  from  what  I  have  taught  on  the  philology  of  this  question.  This 
surely  is  granting  my  present  antagonist  all  he  can  demand.  But  this 
question  has  no  concern  with  any  change  in  the  meaning  of  the  word, 
either  possible  or  actual,  after  its  application  to  the  ordinance.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  it  never  underwent  the  change  for  which  my  antagonist 
contends.  But  had  it  actually  undergone  such  a  change,  it  would  not 
relieve  him.  Whatever  was  the  meaning  of  the  word,  when  first  applied 
to  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  is  the  thing  enjoined  by  Christ.  If  at  first 
the  command  was  to  immerse,  the  command  must  still  be  to  immerse. 

But  in  the  view  of  this  writer,  the  belief  of  the  Baptist  is  still  more 
extravagant  and  paradoxical ;  for  "  he  believes,  that  though  the  minister 
designs  solemnly  to  administer  Christ's  ordinance,  though  the  believer 
designs  to  receive  it, — though  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit 
be  invoked, — though  the  element  of  water  be  used — unless  the  whole 
body  be  immersed  beneath  the  element,  the  whole  is  vain  and  nugatory, 
and  the  party  remains  unbaptized."  All  true,  perfectly  true ;  and  no 
axiom  is  more  evident.  However  sincere  we  may  believe  our  opponents 
to  be,  still  we  cannot  believe  that  a  person  is  immersed  when  he  is 
sprinkled.  The  minister  may  design  solemnly  to  administer  Christ's 
ordinance,  yet  if  he  sprinkles,  we  cannot  believe  that  he  baptizes,  be- 
cause baptism  is  immersion.  He  may  be  truly  washed  in  the  blood  of 
Christ,  when,  out  of  ignorance  of  the  will  of  his  Master,  he  is  sprinkled 
instead  of  being  immersed.  Sincerity  cannot  convert  one  thing  into  an- 
other, and  cannot  cause  sprinkling  to  be  immersion.  Intention  to  fulfil 
a  command  does  not  fulfil  it,  if  the  nature  of  the  command  is  mistaken. 
God  will  forgive  the  ignorance  of  his  people,  but  he  will  not  reckon  that 
a  person  has  fulfilled  his  command,  who  has  mistaken  his  command. 
The  church  at  Corinth  designed,  no  doubt,  to  observe  the  Lord's 
supper ;  yet  the  apostle  Paul  would  not  give  their  observance  the  name 
of  Christ's  ordinance.    A  Roman  Catholic  priest  may  sincerely  design  to 


244  REPLY    TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH. 

transubstantiate  the  wafer  into  Christ,  but  notwithstanding  his  sincerity, 
he  fails.  I  have  no  objection  to  admit,  that  persons  mistaken  about  the 
mode  and  subjects  of  baptism,  may  be  among  the  most  eminent  and  the 
most  useful  of  the  servants  of  God ;  but  to  admit  that  any  one  is  bap- 
tized who  is  not  immersed,  is  self-contradiction.  Immersion  is  the  very 
thing  enjoined  in  the  ordinance.  The  design  of  both  the  administrator 
and  the  receiver  of  any  rite,  can  have  no  effect  whatever  on  the  meaning 
of  this  word,  and  cannot  at  all  change  into  an  ordinance  of  Christ,  what 
is  not  an  ordinance  of  Christ ;  neither  can  the  use  of  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  convert  sprinkling  into  baptism.  Chivalry 
creates  its  knights  with  this  solemnity ;  but  does  it  thereby  make  the 
ceremony  a  Divine  appointment?  Is  it  not  a  fearful  thing,  to  do  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  which 
the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  have  not  enjoined  1  Men 
may  endeavour,  by  adding  a  load  of  ceremonies,  to  compensate  for  what 
they  omit,  but  all  is  vain.  Nor  does  the  use  of  water  make  the  rite 
baptism.  All  use  of  water  is  not  baptism  :  it  is  only  as  water  is  used 
according  to  Christ's  commandment,  that  it  is  baptism.  The  sprinkling 
of  the  holy  water  of  the  church  of  Rome  is  not  baptism.  To  all  the 
things  mentioned  by  the  writer,  may  be  added  the  cross,  and  the  oil,  and 
the  spittle,  with  exorcism,  and  the  honey,  and  the  white  garments ;  yet 
where  there  is  no  immersion,  there  is  no  baptism. 

Section  III. — Having  given  us  the  creed  of  the  Baptist,  the  writer  of 
the  note  next  gives  us  that  of  the  churchman.  He  does  well  to  restrict 
it  to  the  churchman ;  for  other  denominations  of  Pse do-baptists  would 
reject  it  with  abhorrence.  Here  we  have  the  testimony  of  churchmen, 
that  the  meaning  of  the  word  when  first  applied  to  the  ordinance,  is 
that  for  which  we  contend,  and  that  the  burden  of  the  change  must  rest 
on  the  shoulders  of  the  church ;  while  we  have  the  testimony  of  the 
other  denominations,  that  the  authority  of  the  church  is  not  a  valid 
foundation.  But  let  us  hear  the  author.  "  The  churchman,"  says  he, 
"  on  the  other  hand,  allows  that  to  dip  is  the  primary  and  almost  con- 
stant meaning  of  the  word  in  classic  authors.  He  further  admits,  that 
probably,  if  not  certainly,  in  some  of  the  Scripture  instances,  and  possi- 
bly in  all,  immersion  was  practised.  But  he  believes  that  when  once 
the  word  was  regularly  applied  to  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  it  received  a 
new  and  more  important  element  of  meaning,  and  that  thenceforward 
the  idea  of  one  specific  mode  was  no  longer  essential.  He  sees  that  in 
Scripture,  dipping,  pouring,  and  sprinkling,  are  all  variously  used  as 
signs  of  spiritual  cleansing.  He  knows  that  in  ceremonial  observances, 
Christ  has  enjoined  regard  to  decency,  comeliness,  order,  and  conveni- 
ence. He  is  aware  that  total  immersion,  in  colder  climates  and  tender 
age,  is  less  convenient.  He  believes  that  Christ  has  given  to  his  church 
authority  in  precisely  such  points  of  outward  order,  to  appoint,  under 
varying  circumstances,  as  the  Spirit  of  wisdom  shall  teach  and  suggest. 
He,  therefore,  concurs  fully  in  the  arrangement  of  the  church  in  this 
land,  by  which  dipping  is  proposed  as  the  standard  mode,  the  more 
primitive  and  fully  significant,  but  in  which,  for  seetoliness  or  safety, 


REPLY    TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH.  245 

pouring  is  expressly  appointed  in  certain  cases,  and  sprinkling  practi- 
cally allowed  in  all."  This  churchman  must  know  that  other  church- 
men have  gone  farther.  They  have  not  only  admitted  that  immersion 
is  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  and  that  nothing  but  necessity  can  justify  a 
departure ;  many  of  them  have  wished  that  the  original  practice  should 
be  revived.  Dr.  Johnson,  in  referring  to  the  change  in  the  eucharist, 
says,  "  I  think  they  (Roman  Catholics)  are  as  well  warranted  to  make 
this  alteration,  as  we  are  to  substitute  sprinkling  in  the  room  of  the 
ancient  baptism."  Petavius,  the  celebrated  Jesuit,  speaking  of  the  power 
of  the  church  to  alter,  or  impose,  says,  "And  indeed  immersion  is  pro- 
perly baptismos,  though  at  present  we  content  ourselves  with  pouring 
water  on  the  head."  It  is  expressly  not  only  on  this  principle,  but  on 
the  authority  of  the  very  example  of  changing  immersion  into  sprink- 
ling, that  Bossuet  vindicates  the  change  in  the  Lord's  supper.  Admis- 
sions of  opponents,  however,  I  entirely  disregard  on  this  subject;  I  can 
prove  the  point  with  evidence  sufficient  to  satisfy  any  rational  creature. 
If  any  man  will  be  obstinately  ignorant,  let  him  be  ignorant.  This  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  will  come. 

Guarded,  however,  as  this  churchman  is  in  his  admissions,  they  are 
quite  sufficient  for  my  purpose.  If,  as  he  admits,  immersion  was  the 
meaning  of  the  word  at  the  time  of  its  appropriation  to  the  ordinance ; 
and  if  possibly  all  Scripture  instances  of  baptism  conformed  to  this,  I 
need  nothing  else  to  establish  my  point.  The  word  must  be  used  in 
reference  to  the  ordinance,  in  the  sense  which  it  possessed  at  the  time 
that  it  was  first  applied  to  the  ordinance.  The  laws  of  language  abso- 
lutely require  this.  And,  according  to  the  testimony  of  this  candid 
churchman,  there  is  no  insurmountable  difficulty  in  supposing  that  every 
instance  of  baptism  mentioned  in  Scripture,  was  performed  by  immer- 
sion. The  difficulties,  then,  which  some  have  pretended  to  find  on  this 
supposition,  the  churchman  agrees  with  me,  are  all  surmountable. 

"  But,"  says  the  writer,  "  he  believes  that  when  once  the  word  was 
regularly  applied  to  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  it  received  a  new  and  more 
important  element  of  meaning,  and  that  thenceforward  the  idea  of  one 
specific  mode  was  no  longer  essential."  This  is  a  most  marvellous  doc- 
trine. If  the  word  at  the  time  Christ  appointed  the  ordinance  signified 
immersion,  will  it  lose  that  signification  the  moment  that  Christ  enjoins 
immersion?  Does  a  command  to  use  a  specific  mode  imply  that  no 
specific  mode  is  to  be  observed,  but  that  all  modes  are  equally  legiti- 
mate ?  Whatever  element  it  may  be  supposed  is  added  to  the  significa- 
tion of  a  word  on  its  appropriation,  it  surely  does  not  lose  any  element, 
much  less  its  very  essence.  The  appropriation  of  a  word  restricts  its 
application  on  certain  subjects,  but  it  does  not  divest  it  of  its  meaning. 
The  appropriation  of  this  word  confines  it  to  the  ordinance  in  question, 
but  it  is  to  that  ordinance  only  as  it  exists  when  it  is  appropriated.  Men 
may  change  the  ordinance,  and  change  the  meaning  of  the  word,  but 
such  change  has  no  effect  on  the  meaning  of  the  word  as  used  in  Scrip- 
ture for  this  ordinance.  The  writer  here  entirely  mistakes  the  principle 
of  appropriation  which  I  have  explained,  and  which  he  thinks  he  can 
use  against  himself.   Appropriation  gave  the  word  a  particular  direction 


246  REPLY    TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH. 

to  a  particular  subject,  but  did  not  divest  the  word  of  its  meaning.  This 
may  be  illustrated  from  every  instance  of  appropriation.  When  words 
are  appropriated,  they  are  indeed  liable  to  change  their  meaning  with 
every  corresponding  change  in  the  thing  to  which  they  are  appropriated ; 
but  as  respects  the  Scriptures  there  can  be  a  change  in  neither.  The 
ordinance  remains  the  same  there,  and  the  meaning  of  its  name  can 
never,  as  to  Scripture  use,  be  less  or  more.  I  care  not  if  it  were  in 
actual  proof,  that  pouring  or  sprinking  was  substituted  for  immersion 
by  those  who  used  the  Greek  language ;  and  that  those  modes  were 
actually  called  by  the  name  of  immersion.  These  facts  could  avail 
nothing  with  respect  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  ordinance  of 
Christ.  It  is  here  that  the  perspicacity  of  the  writer  of  the  note  utterly 
fails.  The  possible  or  actual  use  of  a  word  in  after  times,  he  alleges  as 
its  meaning  in  the  ordinance  of  Christ.  "Arise,  and  be  baptized,"  says 
Ananias  to  Paul.  Now,  if  at  the  time  the  word  signified  immersion,  is 
not  immersion  the  thing  enjoined  ?  Can  this  command  be  fulfilled  by 
being  sprinkled?  Should  the  word  afterwards  change  its  meaning, 
does  such  change  avail  anything  in  relieving  from  obedience  to  the 
command  ? 

"  The  churchman,"  the  writer  tells  us,  "  sees  that  in  Scripture,  dip- 
ping, pouring,  and  sprinkling,  are  all  variously  used  as  signs  of  spiritual 
cleansing."  And  did  riot  Christ  see  this  as  clearly  as  the  churchman? 
If  dipping,  pouring,  and  sprinkling  are  all  equally  applicable  to  this 
ordinance,  why  did  Christ  enjoin  one  of  them  only  ?  The  churchman's 
practice  is  a  censure  on  the  Son  of  God.  If  the  churchman  has  good 
reasons,  as  he  says  he  has,  for  changing  the  mode  of  this  ordinance, 
Christ  could  not  have  good  reasons  for  adopting  it.  Was  it  not  as  easy 
in  the  time  of  Christ  to  pour  or  sprinkle,  as  it  was  to  immerse?  If  he 
foresaw  that  there  would  in  future  times,  and  in  certain  countries,  be 
reasons  for  a  change,  why  did  he  not  himself  provide  for  this?  The 
churchman  makes  himself  more  keen-sighted  than  the  institutor  of  the 
ordinance.  The  Baptist  sees  as  clearly  as  the  churchman,  that  pouring 
and  sprinkling  are  in  Scripture  used  for  cleansing  as  well  as  dipping, 
and  he  has  no  objection  to  them  in  any  ordinance,  if  Christ  had  appoint- 
ed them.  The  Baptist  cannot  presume  to  use  any  discretion  in  altering 
the  commandments  of  God.  Besides,  he  sees  that  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion, as  well  as  cleansing,  are  figured  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  The 
churchman  himself  admits  the  same  thing.  Dipping,  pouring,  and 
sprinkling,  were  indeed  all  used  under  the  law;  but  had  the  Jews  a  right 
to  substitute  the  one  for  the  other?  When  they  were  commanded  to  dip, 
did  they  fulfil  by  sprinkling?  When  commanded  to  spirinkle,  did  they 
dip  ?  If  indeed  the  mode  in  baptism  is  emblematical,  and  my  opponent 
admits  that  it  is  emblematical,  it  cannot  be  changed ;  to  change  it  would 
be  to  destroy  the  emblem. 

The  churchman,  it  seems,  knows  that  in  "  ceremonial  observances 
Christ  has  enjoined  regard  to  decency,  comeliness,  order,  and  convenience." 
Here  the  churchman  has  undoubtedly  the  advantage ;  for  he  knows  what 
nobody  knows  but  himself  and  the  pope.  He  knows  that  he  can  annul 
what  Christ  has  commanded,  and  substitute  something  more  decent, 


REPLY    TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH.  247 

comely,  orderly,  and  convenient,  in  its  stead.  On  this  ground,  then,  let 
sprinkling  rest,  along  with  all  the  other  trumpery  of  human  invention. 
But  if  this  writer  refers  to  1  Cor.  xiv.  40,  as  his  sanction  for  this 
authority,  it  will  not  serve  him.  This  refers  not  to  ceremonial  observ- 
ances, more  than  other  things ;  and  the  thing  directly  spoken  of,  is  not 
of  a  ceremonial  nature  at  ail.  The  passage  gives  no  authority  to  appoint 
or  alter  observances  of  any  kind ;  but  directs  that  all  the  ordinances  or 
observances  of  a  church,  should  be  attended  to  in  order.  This  was 
violated  in  the  church  at  Corinth,  where  one  had  a  psalm,  and  another  a 
doctrine,  &c,  at  the  same  time.  It  is  the  very  essence  of  popery  to  claim 
a  right  to  annul  or  alter  the  commandments  of  Christ.  A  rite  appointed 
by  Christ  is  no  more  to  be  tampered  with,  than  any  commandment  in 
the  decalogue.  But  with  this  subject  I  have  nothing  to  do  here.  My 
present  business  is  to  prove  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptism  in  the 
commandment  of  Christ.  Whether  Christ  has  given  any  power  to  men 
to  annul  this  commandment,  and  substitute  another  rite,  is  a  question  to 
be  argued  on  other  grounds.  In  the  mean  time,  I  am  very  well  pleased 
that  I  have  driven  sprinkling  and  pouring  out  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
obliged  them  to  take  shelter  with  the  figments  of  popery,  in  church 
authority. 

The  churchman  is  also  "  aware,  that  total  immersion  in  colder  climates 
and  tender  age  is  less  convenient."  All  churchmen  are  not  aware  of 
this.  With  respect  to  tender  age,  the  Baptist  is  not  concerned  to  convince 
his  opponents  that  it  is  safe  to  immerse  newly-born  infants.  This  he 
will  undertake  to  prove,  when  it  is  proved  that  newly-born  infants  are 
commanded  to  be  baptized.  Were  it  really  true,  that  in  any  circum- 
stances immersion  would  be  dangerous  to  health,  what  would  follow? 
Not  that  sprinkling  should  be  substituted  for  immersion ;  but  that  the 
person  could  not  be  baptized  at  all.  If  the  ordinance  of  Christ  is  impos- 
sible, except  at  the  hazard  of  life,  the  law  of  God  does  not  require  it. 

The  churchman  "  believes  that  Christ  has  given  to  his  church 
authority,  in  precisely  such  points  of  outward  order,  to  appoint,  under 
varying  circumstances,  as  the  Spirit  of  wisdom  shall  teach  or  suggest." 
Can  anything  be  more  provokingly  intolerable  than  this  way  of  reason- 
ing? Way  of  reasoning !  Such  a  pretence  for  avoiding  reasoning !  Is 
the  churchman  to  foist  on  us  his  creed,  instead  of  giving  us  his  argu- 
ments? But  there  is  inconsistency  in  the  author's  own  management  of 
this  business.  If  the  church  has  authority  from  Christ  to  alter  things 
of  a  ritual  nature  according  to  its  own  wisdom,  why  does  the  writer 
strain  to  sanction  the  change  with  the  meaning  of  the  word?  The 
writer,  then,  finds  himself  in  a  quagmire,  and  still  as  he  begins  to  sink 
in  one  spot  he  shifts  with  all  speed  to  another.  Here  we  have  an  express 
avowal  of  authority  from  Christ  to  change  his  ritual  appointments.  If 
this  is  not  popery  I  do  not  know  where  popery  is  to  be  found.  Alas, 
alas!  and  is  this  Mr.  Bickersteth?  But  my  work  is  done.  When  I  have 
driven  my  antagonist  to  take  refuge  among  the  mummery  of  the  man  of 
sin.  my  triumph  is  complete.  All  I  engaged  to  do  was  to  prove  that  the 
word  in  question  signifies  to  immerse.  This  writer,  instead  of  fairly 
meeting  me  on  this,  alleges  that  his  church  has  power  to  alter  the  mode, 


248  REPLY   TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH. 

and  in  certain  cases  to  substitute  pouring  or  sprinkling  for  immersion. 
This  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question.  This  might  be  true  without 
in  the  least  affecting  my  doctrine,  with  respect  to  the  meaning  of  the 
word  in  dispute.  Whether  it  is  true  or  not  must  be  argued  on  other 
ground.  No  wonder  that  Puseyism  spreads  in  the  church  of  England, 
when  such  a  sentiment  as  this  can  be  avowed  by  such  a  man  as  Mr. 
Bickersteth. 

Now  I  appeal  to  every  impartial  reader,  whether  there  can  be  a  doubt 
as  to  my  victory,  when  my  antagonist  is  obliged  to  shelter  his  practice 
under  the  authority  of  his  church?  If  reasoning  on  the  meaning  of  the 
word  could  have  established  his  point,  would  he  have  recourse  to  church 
authority?  If  church  authority  has  changed  the  mode,  why  seek  a 
sanction  in  the  meaning  of  the  word  ?  If  the  meaning  of  the  word 
sanctions  the  practice,  why  admit  a  change  by  church  authority  ?  This 
is  self-contradiction.  Other  denominations  of  paedo-baptists  will  reject 
this  mode  of  defence  ;  but  ought  it  not  to  excite  in  them  a  suspicion, 
that  their  reliance  on  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  not  well  founded?  The 
church  of  England,  by  its  present  practice,  is  as  much  concerned  as  the 
other  denominations  of  paedo-baptists  to  vindicate  pouring  or  sprinkling 
as  being  baptism.  Now,  if  it  was  in  their  opinion  possible  to  do  this  by 
an  appeal  to  the  word,  would  they  have  recourse  to  the  authority  of  the 
church,  to  change  the  mode  ?  The  very  claim  admits  a  change.  Is 
not  this  a  tacit  confession  that,  in  their  opinion,  there  is  no  relief  for 
sprinkling,  or  pouring,  in  criticism?  Does  any  one  doubt,  that  if 
criticism  could  do  anything,  the  church  of  England  is  not  as  able  as 
other  denominations  to  avail  itself  of  its  aid?  Is  all  the  learning  of 
paedo-baptists  confined  to  other  denominations,  that  they  alone  attempt 
to  find  their  practice  in  the  word?  If  learning  could  prove  that  pouring 
and  sprinkling  could  be  brought  under  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  dis- 
pute, would  the  church  of  England  fail  to  prove  it?  I  maintain  that 
the  church  of  England  is  substantially  on  my  side  of  the  question.  By 
resting  on  the  authority  of  the  church  to  substitute  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling for  immersion  they  have  decided  the  question  of  criticism  against 
themselves.  This  certainly  ought  to  bring  those  denominations  of 
paedo-baptists  to  reflection,  who  have  no  pretensions  to  church  power. 

The  error  of  the  church  of  England  in  its  defence  of  pouring,  or 
sprinkling,  is  much  less  hurtful,  as  regards  all  passages  of  Scripture 
which  concern  the  ordinance  itself,  than  that  of  other  paedo-baptists ;  but 
in  another  point  of  view  it  is  much  worse.  It  is  worse,  because  it  lays 
a  foundation  for  the  alteration  of  other  ordinances,  and  for  piles  of  mum- 
mery to  an  indefinite  extent ;  but  it  does  comparatively  little  injury,  in 
explaining  passages  of  Scripture  that  refer  to  baptism.  The  churchman 
is  not  obliged  to  force  any  of  them,  or  avoid  their  true  import.  He  can 
explain  them  according  to  their  true  meaning,  and  take  edification  from 
the  mode,  as  an  emblem  of  the  union  of  believers  with  Christ,  in  his 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection.  This  is  an  incalculable  advantage, 
which  the  church  of  England  possesses  over  other  denominations  of 
paedo-baptists :  it  contributes  much  to  the  production  of  clear,  accurate, 
and  extensive  views  of  the  Gospel.     On  the  other  hand,  other  denomi- 


REPLY    TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH.  249 

nations  that  cannot  claim  the  authority  of  the  church  for  altering  the 
institutions  of  Christ,  are  obliged  to  find  pouring  or  sprinkling  in  the 
meaning  of  the  word ;  and  consequently  to  torture  language  with  the 
utmost  violence.  In  this  way,  also,  some  of  the  finest  features  of  the 
Gospel,  which  are  beautifully  displayed  in  the  emblem  of  baptism,  are 
entirely  kept  out  of  view. 

It  is  often  thought  strange  that  there  should  be  such  a  difference,  for 
such  a  length  of  time,  among  good  men,  on  so  simple  a  question  as  the 
meaning  of  a  common  word.  But  with  respect  to  persons  who  hold 
the  views  of  my  present  antagonist,  the  thing  is  not  at  all  strange.  How 
can  there  be  agreement  when  the  parties  do  not  judge  by  the  same 
standard  ?  My  antagonist  builds  on  the  authority  of  his  church,  to  alter 
the  mode  of  ritual  ordinances:  I  utterly  reject  this  foundation,  and  seek 
authority  only  in  the  meaning  of  the  word.  The  saints  in  heaven  could 
not  agree  on  any  subject,  should  they  adopt  different  standards  of  judg- 
ment. If  Mr.  Bickersteth,  and  his  friends,  have  authority  to  alter  the 
mode  of  a  ritual  ordinance,  they  may  undoubtedly  pour  or  sprinkle  in 
defiance  of  the  meaning  of  any  word.  If  I  do  not  choose  to  claim  a 
like  authority,  I  must  be  contented  to  observe  the  ordinance  as  Christ 
enjoined  it. 

Section  IV. — "  Let  us  now,"  says  the  writer,  "  produce  Mr.  C.'s  own 
conclusions,  and  examine  which  of  these  views  his  critical  inquiries 
confirm.  They  shall,  to  avoid  all  error,  be  stated  in  his  own  words. 
'  1st.  Bapto,  except  when  it  signifies  to  dye,  denotes  mode,  and  nothing 
but  mode.  2dly.  Bapto  and  baptizo  are  exactly  the  same  in  meaning, 
as  to  increase  or  diminution  of  the  action.  That  the  one  is  more  or 
less  than  the  other,  as  to  mode  or  frequency,  is  a  groundless  conceit. 
3rdly.  There  is  one  important  difference.  Bapto  is  never  used  to  denote 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  baptizo  never  signifies  to  dye.  The 
primitive  word  has  two  meanings, — the  primary,  to  dip :  the  secondary, 
to  dye.  But  the  derivative  is  formed  to  modify  the  primary  only. 
4thly.  Bapto  means  also  to  dye.  And  although  this  meaning  arose  from 
the  mode  of  dyeing  by  dipping,  yet  the  word  has  come  by  appropriation 
to  denote  dyeing  without  reference  to  mode.  As  this  point  is  of  material 
consequence  in  this  controversy,  I  shall  establish  it  by  examples  that 
put  it  beyond  question.  Nothing  in  the  history  of  words  is  more  com- 
mon than  to  enlarge  or  diminish  their  signification.  Ideas  not  originally 
included  are  often  affixed,  while  others  drop  ideas  originally  asserted. 
In  this  way,  bapto,  from  signifying  mere  mode,  came  to  be  applied  to  a 
certain  operation  usually  performed  in  that  mode.  From  signifying  to 
dip,  it  came  to  signify  to  dye  by  dipping,  because  this  was  the  way  in 
which  things  were  usually  dyed.  And  afterwards,  from  dyeing  by  dip- 
ping, it  came  to  denote  dyeing  in  any  manner.  A  like  process  may  be 
shown  in  the  history  of  a  thousand  other  words.'  "  On  this  the  writer 
makes  the  following  observations  : — "  These  remarks  are  distinct  and 
clear.  They  are  also  substantially  true.  But  it  is  most  strange  the 
clear-headed  author  does  not  see  how  expressly  they  overthrow  his  own 
theory.     He  has  given   us  the   strongest  warrant  for   extending  the 

32 


250  REPLY    TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH. 

meaning  of  baptizo,  by  showing  us  the  like  extension  in  its  primitive, 
bapto,  from  the  very  same  cause.  He  has  proved  that  the  idea  of  mode 
is  secondary,  and  non-essential,  when  baptizo  is  applied  to  the  sacrament 
of  Christ,  by  proving  the  very  same  of  its  primitive,  bapto,  when  used 
in  the  sense  of  dyeing.  The  author  has  left  no  link  wanting  in  his  own 
refutation.  The  two  words  originally  signify  the  same  as  to  mode. 
Bapto  acquires  the  secondary  sense  of  dyeing;  baptizo  acquires  the 
secondary  sense  of  baptizing.  Bapto,  from  dyeing  by  dipping,  comes 
to  denote  dyeing  in  any  manner.  Baptizo,  from  baptizing  by  dipping, 
comes  to  denote  baptizing  in  any  manner.  What  analogy  can  be  more 
perfect  ?  What  justification  of  the  practice  of  the  church  can  be  more 
complete?" 

Here  my  opponent  thinks  he  has  irrefragably  refuted  me  out  of  my 
own  mouth.  He  has  turned  my  critical  doctrines  against  myself,  and 
showed  that  instead  of  proving  my  own  views  of  the  meaning  of  the 
word  in  dispute,  I  have  unanswerably  proved  his  meaning.  But  with 
the  utmost  ease  I  shall  wrest  my  weapons  out  of  his  hands.  I  have 
shown  the  principles  that  operate  in  the  appropriation  of  words,  and 
that  words  often  wander  far  from  their  original  import,  being  sometimes 
restricted  in  their  use,  and  sometimes  most  capriciously  extended ;  still, 
however,  even  in  their  wildest  freaks,  guided  by  principle,  and  capable 
of  being  definitely  ascertained.  I  exemplified  this  in  the  case  of  bapto; 
and  my  present  antagonist  thinks  he  can  turn  the  force  of  all  that  I 
have  said,  to  demonstrate  that  there  is  a  like  change  in  the  meaning 
of  baptizo.  There  is  not,  he  thinks,  a  link  in  the  chain  wanting.  In 
this,  however,  he  is  altogether  mistaken.  He  wants  an  essential  link. 
Use  has  actually  conferred  the  alleged  meaning  on  bapto — use  has  not 
conferred  the  alleged  meaning  on  baptizo.  Now  where  is  his  demon- 
stration ?  He  might  allege  the  authority  of  my  philosophy  to  prove  the 
possibility  of  such  a  change  in  the  meaning  of  the  word ;  but  without 
proof  that  the  process  has  actually  taken  place  in  the  history  of  the  word, 
this  is  of  no  service  to  his  cause.  Here  is  a  poor  Jew.  I  admit  that 
though  he  is  not  now  worth  a  farthing,  he  may,  possibly,  before  his 
death,  be  another  Rothschild.  At  the  end  of  thirty  or  forty  years,  my 
antagonist  comes  to  me,  saying,  "  I  will  prove  by  your  own  admissions 
that  the  Jew  of  whom  we  were  speaking  is  now  as  rich  as  Rothschild. 
Did  you  not  forty  years  ago  admit  that  it  was  possible,  tl&t  this  man 
might  in  time  become  so  rich?"  I  admit  this,  but  I  want  proof  that 
the  thing  admitted  to  be  possible,  has  actually  taken  place.  Just  so 
with  respect  to  these  words.  Give  me  the  same  proof  that  baptizo,  in 
the  New  Testament,  has  been  brought  to  designate  the  ordinance  of 
Christ  without  reference  to  mode,  as  there  is  that  bapto  signifies  to  dye, 
and  I  will  at  once  warrant  the  change  by  my  philosophy.  The  gold 
coin  called  a  sovereign  is  now  worth  twenty  shillings.  I  admit  that  at 
some  future  time  it  may  pass  for  fifteen  shillings,  or  that  it  may  be 
raised  to  the  value  of  twenty-five  shillings.  Will  this  prove  at  any  spe- 
cified time  that  either  of  these  things  has  actually  taken  place? 

But  I  shall  examine  the  conclusions  of  my  opponent  step  by  step. 
Speaking  of  my  proof  of  the  secondary  meaning  of  bapto,  he  says,  "  He 


REPLY    TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH.  251 

has  given  us  the  strongest  warrant  for  extending  the  meaning  of  baptizo, 
by  showing  us  the  like  extension  in  its  primitive,  bapto,  from  the  very 
same  cause."  I  have  given  a  warrant  that  usage  has  such  a  power,  but 
I  have  given  no  warrant  that,  in  this  instance,  it  has  availed  itself  of 
that  power.  On  the  contrary,  I  deny  that  use  has  ever  exercised  this 
power  on  this  word.  I  have  shown  a  process  by  which  a  word  may 
receive  a  secondary  signification,  totally  excluding  the  idea  that  is 
essential  to  the  primary.  But  does  this  imply  that  any  particular  word 
has  actually  undergone  such  process,  and  received  such  secondary  mean- 
ing? If  the  history  of  the  word  does  not  manifest  such  meaning,  it  has 
no  warrant. 

"  He  has  proved,"  says  the  writer,  "  that  the  idea  of  mode  is  secondary 
and  non-essential,  when  baptizo  is  applied  to  the  sacrament  of  Christ, 
by  proving  the  very  same  of  its  primitive  bapto  when  used  in  the  sense 
of  dyeing."  By  what  process  does  this  conclusion  follow?  Because  it 
is  proved  that  bapto  has  come  to  a  secondary  meaning  which  excludes 
mode,  does  it  follow  that  when  baptizo  is  appropriated  to  an  ordinance 
of  Christ,  it  excludes  mode  ?  He  might  as  well  allege,  that  because 
bapto  signifies  to  dye,  baptizo,  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  must  signify 
to  dye.  Bapto  has,  without,  doubt,  in  its  history,  taken  the  secondary 
meaning  of  dyeing.  Baptizo,  when  applied  to  the  ordinance  of  Christ, 
has  not  laid  aside  its  meaning  as  to  mode.  Appropriation  produces  no 
such  effect.  But  what  does  the  writer  mean  by  secondary  and  non- 
essential ?  Were  it  e»en  true  that  mode  is  secondary,  it  does  not  thereby 
become  non-essential. 

"  The  author,"  says  the  writer,  "  has  left  no  link  in  the  chain  wanting 
in  his  own  refutation."  A  writer  when  he  speaks  thus,  should  be  very 
sure  that  he  stands  on  firm  ground,  and  that  he  thoroughly  understands 
what  he  is  saying.  That  he  speaks  at  random,  I  can  show  in  a  moment. 
But  let  us  examine  the  chain.  "  The  two  words  originally  signify  the 
same  thing  as  to  mode."  Quite  correct.  Let  this  be  the  first  link  of 
the  chain.  "  Bapto  acquires  the  secondary  sense  of  dyeing."  This  is 
my  doctrine.  I  admit  that  it  has  this  meaning  totally  independent  of 
mode.  Let  this  link,  then,  be  made  as  strong  as  the  smith  can  forge  it; 
it  is  made  of  the  very  best  iron.  The  next  link  is,  "  baptizo  acquires  the 
secondary  sense  of  baptizing."  This  link  is  pot  metal ;  it  will  break  the 
first  snap.  What  does  he  mean  by  the  word  baptize  in  these  circum- 
stances ?  Does  he  mean  that  it  designates  the  ordinance  to  which  it 
refers  without  the  expression  of  mode?  If  he  does,  he  is  wrong:  if  he 
does  not,  it  is  nothing  to  his  purpose.  What  can  baptize  in  its  appro- 
priated application  mean,  but  to  immerse  for  a  particular  purpose  ?  Is 
this  anything  but  the  primary  meaning  of  the  word  with  a  particular 
reference?  The  writer  confounds  the  appropriation  of  a  word,  with  a 
secondary  meaning  acquired  by  gradual  use.  When  a  word  is  appro- 
priated, it  is  taken  in  its  proper  sense  at  the  time  of  its  appropriation : 
when  a  word  has  acquired  a  secondary  sense  by  use,  it  has  departed 
from  its  primary  sense.  To  make  the  thing  still  more  plain,  let  us 
take  another  word  for  illustration,  and  suppose  that  raino,  to  sprinkle, 
had  been  used.  According  to  our  author's  way  of  criticising,  it  would 


252  REPLY    TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH. 

be  said,  the  word  primarily  signifies  to  sprinkle,  but  as  applied  to  the 
ordinance  of  Christ,  it  signifies  secondarily  to  rantize.  Now  what  can 
rantize  mean,  in  such  circumstances,  but  to  sprinkle  for  a  particular 
purpose — to  sprinkle  with  reference  to  this  ordinance?  Would  there  be 
here  any  departure  from  the  primary  meaning  of  sprinkle  ?  Let  us  again 
illustrate  by  the  passover.  The  Jews  were  commanded  to  sprinkle  the 
blood  on  the  door-posts.  Now  does  sprinkle  in  this  command  lose  the 
idea  of  mode,  and  refer  to  the  performance  of  the  rite  without  reference 
to  sprinkling?  It  is  shameful  for  a  scholar  to  trifle:  it  is  awful  for  a 
Christian  to  cavil.  Surely  a  very  child  may  see,  that  the  appropria- 
tion of  a  word  to  a  particular  purpose,  does  not  divest  that  word  of  its 
meaning.  The  only  difference  is,  that  it  gives  the  meaning  a  peculiar 
reference  to  a  particular  object.  The  author  of  this  note  applies  my 
doctrine  to  his  purpose,  only  because  he  does  not  thoroughly  understand 
it.  He  has  undoubtedly  made  some  progress ;  and  if  he  continues  in 
this  teachable  temper,  I  will  more  readily  acknowledge  him  to  be  my 
disciple,  than  I  will  newly-born  infants  to  be  called  the  disciples  of 
Christ. 

The  next  link  of  the  chain  is,  "Bapto,  from  dyeing  by  dipping,  comes 
to  denote  dyeing  in  any  manner."  This  link  is  as  strong  as  adamant.  I 
admit  that  I  have  taught  this ;  but  this  chain  is  like  the  toes  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar's image,  partly  of  iron  and  partly  of  miry  clay.  The  next 
link  is  of  clay  of  the  most  brittle  constitution.  "Baptizo,  from  baptizing 
by  dipping,  comes  to  denote  baptizing  in  any  manner."  This  is  mere 
mud.  Where  is  the  proof  that  the  process  has  actually  taken  place? 
Had  the  change  taken  place,  my  doctrine  woidd  recognise  it ;  but  there 
must  be  proof  of  the  actual  change.  Even  were  it  in  proof  that  the 
change  had  actually  taken  place,  though  my  doctrine  must  recognise  it, 
it  would  not  prove  that  anything  but  immersion  is  scripture  baptism. 

Any  change  in  the  word,  after  its  application  to  the  ordinance,  is  of 
no  authority,  as  to  its  use  in  reference  to  the  ordinance.  Had  sprinkling 
been  universally  adopted  at  any  period,  in  place  of  immersion,  by  those 
who  spoke  the  Greek  language;  and  had  the  word  which  now  designates 
immersion  been  applied  to  sprinkling,  the  fact  would  have  no  weight  at 
all,  in  proving  that  sprinkling  is  warranted  by  the  Scriptures.  The 
meaning  of  the  word,  in  reference  to  the  ordinance,  must  be  determined 
by  its  meaning  at  the  time  of  its  application  to  the  ordinance.  Its  mean- 
ing in  the  ordinance  must  be  determined  by  its  sense  in  the  language  at 
the  period  of  appropriation,  not  by  its  use  in  church  history  in  after 
ages.  Does  not  any  one  see  that  a  secondary  meaning  conferred  after 
the  institution  of  the  ordinance,  can  have  no  bearing  on  the  question  ? 
If  in  its  appropriation  to  the  ordinance,  it  signified  immerse,  as  the  writer 
admits,  immersion  it  must  be  for  ever,  as  far  as  Christ's  authority  is  re- 
garded. Is  it  not  enjoined  in  the  sense  of  the  word  at  the  time  ?  No 
after  change  in  the  rite,  and  in  the  meaning  of  the  word  according  to 
the  change  of  the  rite,  can  affect  the  meaning  of  the  word  as  it  stands  in 
Christ's  institution.  I  am  utterly  at  a  loss  to  conceive  how  any  person 
of  ordinary  capacity,  can  attempt  to  fasten  on  a  word  in  Scripture,  a 
meaning  which  use  is  supposed  to  have  conferred  on  the  word  in  after 


REPLY   TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH.  253 

times.  This  is  the  same  thing  as  to  expound  some  words  in  our  transla- 
tion of  Scripture  by  their  present  use,  instead  of  their  old  English  ac- 
ceptation. What  should  we  think  of  an  expositor  who  should  expound 
the  word  charity,  in  Scripture,  agreeably  to  its  present  use  in  the  lan- 
guage ?  To  make  blindness  itself  see  this  truth,  let  us  take  an  illustration. 
Suppose  that  inspiration  had  recorded  the  ordinance  in  English,  and  that 
the  mode  had  been  at  first  sprinkling ;  but  that  in  process  of  time  it  had 
been  universally  superseded  by  immersion ; — how  would  the  secondary 
meaning  of  sprinkling  in  this  ordinance,  determine  the  meaning  of  the 
word  sprinkle  in  the  original  institution?  Would  this  be  a  warrant  to 
neglect  the  scriptural  mode  of  the  ordinance,  and  to  observe  it  according 
to  after  use?  Will  obstinacy  never  yield  to  argument?  Will  Chris- 
tians for  ever  resist  the  commandments  of  Christ?  And  is  Mr.  Bicker- 
steth  the  man  to  sanction  such  perverted  criticism,  in  order  to  make 
void  the  law  of  God  as  to  the  mode  of  a  Divine  ordinance?  Sophistry 
may  invent  evasions  that  for  a  time  may  impose  on  the  ignorant,  the 
unwary,  and  the  prejudiced;  but  it  is  a  fearful  thing  to  lead  away  the 
disciples  of  Christ  from  implicit  and  universal  obedience  to  his  com- 
mandments. Jesus  has  said,  that  whosoever  shall  annul  one  of  the  least 
of  his  commandments,  and  teach  men  so,  the  same  shall  be  called  the 
least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Reviewers,  and  periodicals,  and  pre- 
judiced religious  sects,  may  laud  such  efforts,  but  Jesus  will  at  last  judge 
the  world,  and  determine  between  truth  and  error.  One  mode  is  the 
same  to  me  as  another,  had  not  God  interposed  his  authority ;  but  I 
cannot  force  the  word  of  God  to  sanction  human  errors.  I  read  the 
word  of  God  not  to  find  a  sanction  for  the  practice  of  any  church — not 
to  find  a  sanction  for  my  own  pratice ;  but  to  know  what  God  requires, 
that  to  this  I  may  conform  my  practice. 

Section  V. — My  opponent  proceeds  next  to  the  subjects  of  baptism. 
Here  he  observes  with  respect  to  my  treatise,  that  this  part  of  it  is  less 
than  half  the  length  of  the  former.  Is  this  also  in  his  estimation  an 
evidence  of  my  view  of  comparative  importance  ? 

The  writer  confines  his  remarks  to  my  view  of  the  import  of  the 
commission.  "  And  first,"  says  he,  "  let  us  hear  Mr.  C.'s  own  statement : 
'  If  our  minds  were  not  influenced  by  prejudice,  this  inquiry  (that  is, 
into  the  subjects  of  baptism,)  would  not  be  tedious.  We  have  the  answer 
obviously  in  the  words  of  the  apostolic  commission.  The  persons  whom 
it  warrants  to  be  baptized,  are  scholars  of  Christ,  have  believed  in  him 
for  salvation.  If  this  needed  confirmation,  we  have  it  in  the  record  by 
Mark.  The  persons  whom  Matthew  calls  disciples,  Mark  calls  believers. 
None  then  are  warranted  to  be  baptized  but  disciples  or  believers.  I 
will  risk  the  credit  of  my  understanding  on  showing,  that,  according  to 
this  commission,  believers  only  are  to  be  baptized.  I  would  gainsay 
an  angel  from  heaven,  who  should  say  that  this  commission  may  ex- 
tend to  the  baptism  of  any  but  believers.  Here  I  stand  entrenched, 
and  I  defy  the  ingenuity  of  earth  and  hell  to  drive  me  from  my  posi- 
tion. If  infants  are  baptized,  it  is  from  another  commission,  and  it 
is  another  baptism,  founded  on  another  principle.     Even  if  there  were 


254  REPLY   TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH. 

such,  when  these  infants  believe  the  gospel,  they  must  be  baptized 
according  to  the  command,  Matt,  xxviii.,  without  regard  to  their  bap- 
tism in  infancy.  The  commission  commands  all  men  to  be  baptized, 
on  believing  the  Gospel.  Who  is  he  that  dares  substitute  infant  bap- 
tism for  the  baptism  of  believers?  Whoever  he  is,  he  is  the  man 
who  by  his  tradition  makes  void  the  law  of  God.' "  I  had  said  that 
five  minutes  is  sufficient  to  determine  the  subjects  of  baptism  from  the 
commission  in  either  Matthew  or  Luke;  this  the  writer  thinks  very 
strange,  especially  as  I  allow  that  so  great  a  majority  of  Christians  do 
not  agree  with  me  on  this  subject.  But  I  will  now  reduce  the  time  to 
half  the  allowance.  I  will  grant  no  more  than  two  minutes  and  a  half, 
and  still  I  may  have  time  to  spare.  My  antagonist  should  have  had  the 
perspicacity  to  see  that  I  do  not  rest  on  the  time  necessary  to  examine 
the  foundations  of  the  baptism  of  analogy  and  tradition ;  I  have 
shown  that  if  there  is  such  a  baptism,  it  cannot  shelter  itself  under  the 
commission. 

On  my  statements  referred  to  by  my  antagonist,  he  says,  "  These  are 
hard  words  and  strong  charges ;  and  strange  to  say,  they  have  not  a 
syllable  in  the  text  on  which  to  rest ;  nothing  but  the  bare  assertion  of 
the  writer."  I  will  make  good  every  syllable  in  my  statement.  Let  us 
then  hear  the  grounds  of  the  assertion.  "  The  commission  of  Christ," 
says  he,  "  does  not  contain  the  words,  Go  and  baptize  believers."  Does 
the  writer  mean  that  baptism  is  not  in  Mark  xvi.  16,  enjoined  on  be- 
lievers? This  must  be  his  meaning,  or  his  assertion  would  have  no 
bearing  on  the  subject.  In  direct  opposition  to  this,  I  maintain  that 
baptism  is  expressly  enjoined  on  believers  in  this  passage,  *  Go  ye  into 
all  the  world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believ- 
eth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved."  Does  the  writer  mean,  that  because 
the  word  relating  to  the  ordinance  in  question  is  used  as  a  participle,  and 
not  in  the  imperative  mood,  there  is  no  command  expressed  ?  If  he 
does,  I  forbear  to  speak  as  I  think  of  such  an  assertion.  If  anything 
else  could  be  forcibly  taken  out  of  his  words,  I  should  think  it  an  insult 
to  a  scholar  to  understand  him  in  this  sense ;  and  as  a  matter  of  fact,  I 
hesitated  so  ascribe  this  meaning  to  him  till  I  saw  that  he  himself  ex- 
plained it  as  his  meaning  in  the  sequel.  Is  it  unknown  to  this  writer, 
that  what  is  usually  effected  by  what  are  called  grammatical  modes, 
may  be  effected  in  various  other  ways ;  and  that  it  is  often  optional  in 
expressing  a  command  to  employ  either  the  imperative  mood  or  a 
participle  ?  Even  in  this  very  commission,  the  command  to  go  into  all 
the  world  is  expressed  by  the  participle.  But  there  is  hardly  a  page  of 
any  sort  of  writing,  in  any  language,  from  which  I  could  not  exemplify 
this.  I  wish  I  had  not  found  this  in  a  writing  sanctioned  by  Mr.  Bicker- 
steth ;  for  I  cannot  avoid  saying  that  it  is  either  gross  ignorance  or 
downwright  cavilling.  I  will  make  the  most  illiterate  man  in  England 
refute  this  criticism.  Suppose  a  rebellion  had  taken  place  in  Ireland, 
and  her  Majesty  had  sent  a  commission,  saying,  "  Go,  and  proclaim  a 
pardon  to  the  nation ;  he  that  lays  down  his  arms,  and  takes  an  oath  of 
allegiance,  shall  be  saved."  Would  the  most  illiterate  man  in  the  empire 
say,  that  this  is  not  a  command  to  lay  down  the  arms  of  rebellion,  and 


REPLY    TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH.  255 

to  take  an  oath  of  allegiance?  What  a  shame  is  it  for  learned  men  to 
make  themselves  ignorant  of  what  is  known  to  the  most  uncultivated 
common  sense?  But  how  awful  is  it  for  Christians  to  cavil  with  the 
language  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  in  order  to  sanction  the  practices  of  men 
with  the  authority  of  institutions  of  Christ !  Surely  this  writer  cannot 
believe  that  there  is  no  command  given  by  Christ  with  respect  to  baptism. 
And  if  it  is  not  here,  where  is  it?  How  astonishing  is  it  that  Christians 
will  adopt  such  means  of  opposition  to  the  ordinances  of  Christ! 
"These  are  hard  words  and  strong  charges."  But  will  any  one  show 
me  how,  with  a  proper  regard  to  truth,  I  can  say  less  ?  I  would  gladly 
say  nothing ;  but  when  I  must  speak  I  must  designate  things  by  their 
proper  names.  When  I  see  perversion  so  manifest,  must  I  hide  my  eyes, 
or  pretend  to  think  that  it  is  all  legitimate  reasoning  ?  No  command  in 
the  commission  to  baptize !  And  does  a  good  cause  require  such  a 
paradox  to  maintain  it  ?  Christians  in  some  things  do  not  see,  because 
they  will  not  see.  Lord  Nelson  when  once  in  pursuit,  refused  to  obey  the 
signal  of  recall ;  but  to  excuse  himself  he  put  the  telescope  to  one  of  his 
eyes  that  was  blind,  and  turning  it  towards  the  object,  swore  that  he  did 
not  see  the  signal ;  and  Christians  sometimes  do  not  see  the  signal 
because  they  put  the  telescope  to  the  blind  eye.  I  believe  Lord  Nelson 
was  successful  on  the  occasion,  but  shall  Christians  expect  success  in 
acting  contrary  to  the  authority  of  their  Commander?  Such  conduct 
always  implies  contempt  for  the  skill  of  Him  who  gave  the  orders. 

"  Still  less,"  continues  my  antagonist  with  respect  to  the  words  of  the 
commission  in  Mark,  "  Go  and  baptize  believers  only."  Such  an  addition 
is  not  necessary  in  order  to  confine  baptism  to  believers.  If  none  but 
believers  are  enjoined  to  be  baptized,  none  but  believers  are,  according 
to  the  commission,  to  be  baptized.  If  there  is  a  baptism  for  others,  it 
must  have  other  proof.  Has  my  antagonist,  then,  the  hardihood  to 
assert,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  commission  on  which  my  assertion 
can  rest  ?  My  assertions  in  every  tittle  are  true  beyond  the  power  of 
the  perversions  of  sophistry. 

"  The  only  command  expressed  on  the  subject,"  says  the  writer,  "  is 
to  baptize  all  nations."  There  is  no  such  command  either  expressed  or 
implied.  The  command  in  Mark  is,  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  every 
creature,  baptizing  the  believers.  The  command  according  to  Matthew 
is,  to  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  the  disciples.  The  phraseology, 
"  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them,"  necessarily  confines  the  baptism 
to  the  persons  who  shall  be  discipled.  The  antecedent  to  the  pro- 
noun is  the  word  disciples,  taken,  as  grammarians  speak,  out  of 
the  verb  disciple.  The  very  nature  of  the  thing  requires  this;  it  is 
obviously  only  disciples  that  they  could  baptize.  Unbelievers  would 
not  submit  to  baptism.  I  will  undertake  to  show  the  greatest  bump- 
kin in  England,  that  the  restriction  is  necessarily  in  the  expression. 
"  Go,"  says  a  corn-merchant  to  his  clerks,  "  buy  all  the  grain  in 
the  market,  storing  it,"  &c.  Does  any  idiot  ask,  what  grain  is  to 
be  stored?  Is  it  not  the  grain  that  is  bought,  and  not  the  grain  that 
they  could  not  obtain,  or  was  bought  by  others?  Could  there  arise  a 
question  on  this  subject  ?    What  would  be  thought  of  one  of  the  clerks, 


256  REPLY    TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH. 

who  should  ask,  "  Do  you  mean,  Sir,  that  I  am  to  store  all  the  grain 
in  the  market,  whether  I  can  buy  it  or  not?"  Shame,  shame,  shame  ! 
Will  the  Lord's  people  trifle  in  reasoning  about  the  commands  of  their 
Master,  in  a  manner  that  would  disgrace  idiotcy  ?  Shall  they  stave  off 
conviction  by  quibbles,  not  to  be  exemplified  in  the  most  unprincipled 
chicanery  ? 

It  is  evident  that  the  writer's  own  conscience  is  no  more  touched  than 
is  mine,  in  restricting  the  baptism  to  disciples  instead  of  extending  it  to 
unbelievers  in  the  nations.  It  is  merely  a  stratagem  to  bring  me  to 
terms.  If  I  allow  him  to  bring  in  infants  as  disciples,  he  will  very 
willingly  allow  me  to  exclude  adult  unbelievers.  "  The  only  limitation," 
says  he,  "  to  be  learned  by  inference,  is  previous  discipleship."  Now 
this  expressly  grants  that  there  is  such  a  limitation,  and  it  is  perfectly 
indifferent  how  the  limitation  is  made  out ;  it  makes  no  difference  whether 
it  is  inferential  or  express.  But  if  it  is  an  inference,  it  must  be  a  neces- 
sary inference,  else  it  has  no  authority.  An  inference  might  exclude 
unbelievers,  but  no  inference  can  bring  anything  into  the  word  disciple, 
that  is  not  already  in  it. 

"  The  words  in  Mark,"  says  my  antagonist,  "  contain  no  command  to 
baptize  at  all ;  they  are  a  promise  to  baptized  believers."  I  have  dis- 
proved this  assertion ;  I  have  shown  it  to  be  unworthy  of  a  scholar  and 
of  a  Christian.  It  is  so  utterly  unscholar-like,  that  had  not  the  author 
himself  developed  his  meaning,  I  should  have  ascribed  it  to  him  with 
great  hesitation,  even  when  substantially  avowed  in  previous  statements. 
The  apostles  understood  it  as  a  command,  for  they  commanded  the  dis- 
ciples to  be  baptized.  Indeed,  a  promise  from  Christ  to  baptized  persons 
implies  a  command  for  the  institution ;  for  God  does  not  give  a  promise 
to  will-worship.  But  to  make  out  a  command,  I  seek  for  aid  from 
nothing  but  the  words  of  the  commission.  "  There  is  no  ground  in  the 
commission,"  says  the  writer,  "  for  saying  that  St.  Mark  calls  the  same 
persons  believers,  whom  St.  Matthew  calls  disciples.  So  far  from  afford- 
ing an  impregnable  position,  there  is  not  a  corner  of  the  passage  on 
which  to  rest  the  proof."  What  does  the  writer  mean  by  this?  Does 
he  mean  that  the  words  of  the  commission  in  Matthew  do  not  expressly 
assert,  that  those  called  disciples  by  him,  are  by  Mark  called  believers ; 
and  that  the  words  of  the  commission  in  Mark  do  not  assert  that  those 
called  believers  by  him,  are  by  Matthew  called  disciples?  This  is  very 
true,  but  for  such  a  declaration  we  would  not  seek  a  corner  of  the 
passage.  Who  would  expect  such  an  assertion?  Can  it  never  be 
known  that  two  accounts  correspond,  except  there  is  an  express  declara- 
tion of  the  fact?  then  it  could  not  be  known  that  there  is  a  correspond- 
ence in  any  two  accounts  in  the  different  gospels.  But  on  whatever 
occasions  the  things  referred  to  by  the  two  evangelists  in  this  instance 
were  spoken,  can  there  be  a  doubt  that  they  refer  to  the  same  thing  ? 
Are  they  not  both  an  account  of  the  sending  out  of  the  apostles  to 
preach  and  baptize?  Can  there  be  any  doubt  that  the  two  accounts 
substantially  agree,  and  that  the  persons  to  be  baptized  are  the  same  in 
both?  Would  Mark's  account  of  the  commission  exclude  any  whom 
Matthew's  account  admits?     Can  any  conscience  be  so  hardened,  as  to 


REPLY    TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH.  257 

refuse  to  admit  that  the  disciples  of  Matthew  are  the  believers  of  Mark  ? 
And  does  Mr.  Bickersteth  countenance  such  an  effort  to  make  void  the 
law  of  God  1  Is  he  the  man  who  thus  labours  to  bring  darkness  out  of 
light  ?  Are  the  rites  of  a  favourite  church  to  he  supported  by  tramp- 
ling under  foot  the  commandments  of  God? 

"  In  fact,"  says  my  opponent,  "  the  commission  of  itself,  waiving  other 
arguments,  rather  implies  than  excludes  infant  baptism.  Taken  in  the 
narrowest  sense  the  words  allow,  it  commands  all  disciples  to  be  bap- 
tized. Now  a  disciple  is  simply  a  learner.  And  the  infants  of  pious 
and  believing  parents  are,  from  their  very  birth,  learners  of  Christ; 
they  are  by  Providence  placed  immediately  under  the  teaching  of  those 
who  are  themselves  taught  by  Christ,  and  who  are  his  appointed  channels 
for  imparting  Divine  truth  to  them.  They  are,  in  the  strictest  sense  of 
the  word,  mathetai.  Learners  they  are  by  the  necessity  of  their  age 
and  by  the  privilege  of  believing  parents,  learners  of  Christ.  To  shut 
them  out  of  the  ordinance  is,  then,  to  reject  those  whom  Christ  has  him- 
self included."  Of  all  the  extravagances  that  I  have  ever  met  with  in 
controversy,  this  is  the  most  extravagant.  Newly-born  infants  are 
scholars  in  the  school  of  Christ! ! !  Sir,  they  are  not  scholars  in  any 
school ;  they  know  nothing  of  Christ,  and  can  learn  nothing  of  the 
things  of  his  kingdom.  A  disciple  and  master,  or  teacher,  are  correlative 
terms,  and  in  the  very  nature  of  things  every  disciple  virtually  recog- 
nises the  master  as  fit  to  teach.  Newly-born  infants  are  not  fit  to 
understand  a  teacher  on  any  subject,  and  cannot  be  disciples  in  any 
sense.  But  to  say  that  newly-born  infants  are  disciples  of  Christ,  is  to 
outrage  common  sense,  Do  they  know  anything  of  Christ  more  than 
they  do  of  Mahomet?  Can  the  writer  produce  a  single  example  to 
justify  his  assertion?  Is  there  any  instance  in  which  newly-born 
infants  are  called  the  disciples  of  Christ?  Is  there  any  instance  in 
which  newly-born  infants  are  called  the  disciples  of  any  teacher  ?  Who 
were  the  disciples  of  Pythagoras,  of  Plato,  and  of  all  the  ancient  philo- 
sophers? Were  they  not  persons  who  recognised  them  as  their 
teachers,  and  received  their  doctrine  ?  Who  were  the  disciples  of  John 
the  Baptist?  Were  they  not  persons  who  believed  in  him  as  a  teacher 
sent  from  God,  and  submitted  to  his  doctrine  ?  Who  were  called  the 
disciples  of  Christ  when  he  was  on  earth?  Were  they  not  the  persons 
who  believed  in  him,  and  who  followed  him  as  their  teacher  ?  Since 
the  birth  of  Cain  was  it  ever  heard  that  any  newly-born  infant  was 
called  the  disciple  of  any  man  1  Does  this  writer  suppose  that  we  will 
take  his  mere  assertions  as  proof?  Why  does  he  not  justify  the  alleged 
meaning  by  examples?  Another  person  may  as  legitimately  allege 
that  new-born  infants  are  the  disciples  of  Newton,  or  any  of  the  philo- 
sophers. He  might  as  reasonably  allege  that  they  are  mathematicians, 
musicians,  or  astronomers.  I  meet  the  assertion,  then,  not  only  as 
false,  but  as  fanatical  beyond  the  usual  bounds  of  fanaticism.  I  meet 
it  with  indignation,  because  it  manifests  a  disposition  to  hold  a  tenet, 
not  only  by  forcing  Scripture,  but  by  sacrificing  common  sense ;  I  turn 
away  from  it  as  from  the  ravings  of  insanity.  Give  me  argument,  and 
I  will  answer  by  argument;  but  I  cannot  put  down  extravagance  but 

33 


258  REPLY    TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH. 

by  exposing  it.  I  solemnly  declare,  that  it  pains  me  to  be  obliged  to 
write  in  this  way  with  respect  to  a  thing  recognised  by  Mr.  Bickersteth ; 
but  I  cannot  expose  madness  but  by  showing  it  to  be  madness.  I  once 
met  a  simpleton,  who  answered  as  if  he  knew  every  thing  that  he  was 
asked.  After  some  time,  I  asked  him  if  he  understood  Greek.  "  O  ay," 
was  his  reply.  I  then  said,  "Paddy,  were  you  ever  in  the  moon?" 
"  O  ay,"  said  Paddy,  with  the  utmost  gravity  of  countenance.  I  fol- 
lowed poor  Paddy  no  farther :  and  what  am  I  to  say  to  the  man  who 
asserts  that  newly-born  infants  are  scholars  in  the  school  of  Christ  ? 
Verily  I  can  see  no  more  sanity  in  this,  than  I  do  in  the  assertion  of 
innocent  Paddy.  I  hold  up  this  assertion  to  the  reprobation  of  sober 
sense  in  all  mankind.  Had  such  an  assertion  been  made  in  defence  of 
an  unpopular  truth,  the  author  would  be  hooted  out  of  society.  But 
great  sects  screen  their  advocates  in  all  their  wildest  conceits.  You 
could  not  put  the  Faquirs  to  shame  in  the  land  of  the  Faquirs ;  it  is 
only  the  advocates  of  unpopular  truth  who  are  obliged  to  stand  in  awe 
of  common  sense. 

Were  it  at  all  necessary  to  my  purpose,  it  would  be  easy  to  show, 
not  only  that  the  word  disciple  implies  teaching  in  the  correlate,  and 
capability  of  learning  in  the  disciple,  but  that  it  is  applied  to  the  fol- 
lowers of  Christ  as  it  did  to  the  followers  of  the  philosophers ;  implying 
that  they  have  received  his  distinguishing  doctrine,  and  submit  to  his 
laws.  A  man  might  have  learned  much  from  the  philosophers  who 
could  not  be  called  a  disciple.  To  be  called  a  disciple  of  Christ,  implies 
not  only  to  have  learned  something  from  Christ,  but  to  have  learned 
the  doctrine  of  salvation,  and  to  have  submitted  in  all  things  to  his 
teaching.     But  I  do  not  need  this,  and  therefore  will  pass  it. 

Could  the  writer  satisfy  my  conscience  that  newly-born  infants  are 
disciples  of  Christ,  he  would  relieve  me  of  a  considerable  part  of  the 
burden  of  the  cross  of  Christ.  Nothing  is  so  offensive  in  the  country  in 
which  I  reside,  as  to  refuse  to  baptize  infants.  Men  will  not  understand 
it  in  any  other  way  than  as  denying  infant  salvation.  I  have  no  pleasure 
in  being  odious  to  the  world ;  still  less  in  being  disliked  even  by  the 
people  of  God.  But  I  cannot  wrest  the  Scriptures  in  order  to  please 
men,  nor  to  retain  popularity  even  among  Christians.  I  have  lost  this 
world :  I  do  not  wish  to  lose  both  worlds.  What  Christ  has  shown  me 
in  his  word,  I  cannot  conceal  or  pervert :  I  must  not  be  ashamed  of  his 
word  more  than  of  himself.  I  fight  for  no  church,  for  no  party.  I  do 
not  make  even  my  past  attainments  my  standard;  I  am  willing  to 
advance  or  recede,  as  I  am  made  to  hear  the  word  of  command.  When 
Christ  says  "  Go,"  I  will  go :  when  he  says  "  Come,"  I  will  come.  If 
any  man  can  show  me  to  be  wrong  in  anything,  I  shall  be  swift  in 
changing  my  course.     Truth  is  my  treasure. 

But  the  writer  himself  betrays  his  own  want  of  confidence  in  this 
resource.  If  newly-born  infants  are  really  disciples,  what  need  of  any 
other  proof  for  their  baptism  but  the  commission  itself?  Why  is  not 
the  battle  fought  here  ?  Why  has  he  not  collected  all  his  force  to  bear 
on  this  part  ?  If  he  proves  that  newly-born  infants  are  disciples,  is  not 
the  battle  won?    Obstinacy  itself  would  not  resist  any  longer.    The 


REPLY   TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH.  259 

newly-born  infant  is,  on  this  principle,  baptized  as  expressly  by  the  com- 
mission, as  its  parent.  But  Psedo-baptists  do  not  act  on  this  principle. 
This  writer  himself,  instead  of  opening  a  battery  from  the  commission, 
aims  only  to  show  that  they  are  not  excluded  by  the  commission.  His 
chief  reliance  is  an  analogy  and  tradition,  which  can  have  no  bearing 
on  the  commission,  more  than  they  have  influence  on  the  tides.  He 
endeavours  to  force  me  to  a  compromise  on  the  commission.  If  I  will 
not  allow  him  to  modify  it  with  analogy  and  tradition,  he  will  force  me 
to  baptize  the  nations,  believers  and  unbelievers.  In  this  he  is  incon- 
sistent with  himself;  he  does  not  believe  that  unbelieving  nations  should 
be  baptized ;  and  the  limitation  to  the  disciples  can  have  no  influence 
in  extending  the  meaning  of  the  term.  If  disciples  only  are  to  be  bap- 
tized, infants  are  of  necessity  excluded.  Now  this  shows  that  his  own 
conscience  is  not  his  own  disciple.  If  newly-born  infants  are  directly 
and  expressly  included  among  the  disciples  of  the  commission,  why  does 
he  seek  to  modify  the  disciples  of  the  commission  by  analogy  and  tra- 
dition? These  two  modes  of  defence  destroy  each  other.  Indeed,  if 
infants  are  disciples,  what  temptation  has  he  to  make  the  baptism  liter- 
ally extend  to  unbelieving  nations?  All  this  management  clearly  shows 
that  he  has  not  himself  full  reliance  on  the  discipleship  of  newly-born 
infants. 

I  ask  the  conscience  of  every  Christian,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  is  it  as 
disciples  that  newly-born  infants  are  generally  baptized  ?  Are  they  bap- 
tized because  they  know  Christ,  have  believed  in  his  salvation  and 
character,  and  have  submitted  themselves  entirely  to  his  authority?  Is 
not  this  mode  of  defence  merely  a  desperate  resource,  to  be  employed  in 
dispute,  but  which  has  no  influence  on  the  conscience?  Do  they  who 
practise  infant  baptism  believe  that  the  children  of  Christians  know  more 
of  Christ  when  they  are  born,  than  do  the  children  of  unbelievers,  or 
even  heathens? 

"Nay,"  says  my  opponent,  "the  argument  may  be  carried  still  fur- 
ther. We  have  reasoned  as  if  the  words  had  been,  Go,  disciple  all  na- 
tions, and  baptize  the  disciples,  &c.  But  these  are  not  the  exact  terms. 
Our  Lord's  command  is,  Go,  and  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them, 
&c.  If  we  press  the  force  of  the  letter  with  Mr.  C,  setting  aside  all 
scripture  analogy  and  argument,  and  all  the  testimony  of  the  church, 
we  should  be  led  rather  to  the  compulsory  baptism  of  the  ungodly,  than 
to  the  exclusion  of  infants.  It  is  reason,  scripture  analogy,  and  atten- 
tion to  the  spirit  of  the  command,  which  alone  warrant  any  limitation ; 
and  these  alike  require  that  the  only  restriction  should  be  drawn  from 
the  previous  clause,  and  that  the  term  disciples  should  be  there  inter- 
preted in  the  largest  sense."  I  have  already  answered  this  evasion ;  I 
have  shown  that  the  grammar  of  every  day's  conversation  gives  my 
interpretation  to  the  words.  Nothing  but  a  spirit  of  the  meanest  cavil- 
ling would  think  of  extending  this  command  by  force  to  the  ungodly.  I 
required  neither  analogy,  nor  the  testimony  of  the  church,  to  confine  the 
command  to  those  who  are  discipled  out  of  the  nations.  This  is  the 
legitimate  meaning  of  the  expression.  And  as  I  have  not  been  indebted 
to  the  testimony  of  these  two  witnesses,  I  will  not  receive  their  testimony 


260  REPLY    TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH. 

in  extending  the  meaning  of  the  word  disciples  to  infants.  On  this  they 
are  not  competent  witnesses ;  the  use  of  the  word  alone  can  determine 
this.  But  there  is  falsehood  in  the  very  face  of  this  evasion.  The  com- 
mand to  disciple  all  nations  expressly  excludes  force,  and  it  is  in  con- 
nexion with  their  discipleship  that  their  baptism  is  enjoined.  If  they 
cannot  be  made  disciples  by  force,  they  are  not  to  be  baptized  by  force ; 
for  it  is  after  they  are  discipled,  and  as  they  are  discipled,  that  they  are 
to  be  baptized.  I  ask  the  conscience  of  my  antagonist,  if  he  thinks  that 
the  language  of  the  commission  commands  the  ungodly  in  the  nations 
to  be  baptized  by  force.  If  not,  is  it  not  a  fearful  thing  to  handle  the 
word  of  God  deceitfully  1  Does  he  say  that  the  principle  that  I  employ 
to  exclude  infants  from  the  word  disciples,  will  compel  the  baptism  of 
the  ungodly  ?  This  is  so  false  that  it  has  not  even  a  shadow  of  truth. 
These  two  things  depend  on  different  grounds  of  evidence.  Whether 
disciple  has  such  an  extent  in  its  meaning,  depends  on  the  use  of  the 
word :  the  other  depends  on  the  grammar  of  the  sentence.  Even  were 
it  granted,  that  analogy  and  tradition  establish  another  baptism,  still 
such  baptism  could  not  be  brought  by  interpretation  under  the  commis- 
sion. No  analogy  can  show  that  infants  are  included  in  a  command  to 
baptize  disciples ;  no  tradition  can  witness  that  a  command  to  baptize 
disciples  includes  the  baptism  of  infants.  The  thing  is  a  matter  of  in- 
terpretation, not  of  analogy  or  testimony.  Let  tradition  and  analogy 
have  their  own  baptism,  if  they  will,  but  it  shall  have  no  lodgment  in 
the  commission.  My  antagonist  says,  that  the  term  disciples  should  be 
interpreted  in  the  largest  sense :  by  all  means :  I  will  give  it  the  largest 
sense  that  he  can  prove  that  use  has  ever  conferred  on  it.  But  though 
an  Englishman,  he  is  thus  like  the  Irish;  no  matter  how  good  measure 
you  give  him,  he  must  have  a  douragh  (that  is,  something  additional). 
He  will  not  be  satisfied  with  me  if  I  do  not  throw  in  the  infants  as 
a  douragh. 

The  commission,  as  it  is  recorded  by  Mark,  commands  believers  to 
be  baptized.  Now  if  there  is  an  analogical  and  traditionary  baptism 
in  infancy,  such  analogical  and  traditionary  baptism  does  not  coincide 
with  the  baptism  of  the  commission ;  and  as  soon  as  the  person  is  brought 
to  believe  to  the  saving  of  the  soul,  he  is  enjoined  by  all  the  authority  of 
Jesus  to  be  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Should  a  thousand  baptisms  be  proved  from  other 
sources,  they  could  not  make  void  the  baptism  of  the  commission.  But 
as  we  are  assured  that  there  is  only  one  baptism  in  the  religion  of  Christ, 
the  baptism  of  analogy  and  tradition  must  be  a  human  figment.  This 
is  the  ground  on  which  I  have  placed  the  subject  in  my  treatise.  Many 
a  lever  has  been  employed  to  move  it  off  the  foundation ;  but  it  remains 
like  a  rock  lashed  by  the  waves  of  the  ocean. 

It  is  grievous  that  Christians  are  not  agreed  about  the  ordinances  of 
Christ ;  but  can  union  ever  be  expected  as  long  as  they  reason  on  the 
principles  of  my  opponent  1  Can  that  man  want  proof  for  anything  he 
wishes  to  prove,  who  asserts  that  newly-born  infants  are  disciples  of 
Christ  ?  Can  he  be  at  a  loss  in  justifying  the  change  of  any  ordinance 
Gf  Christ,  when  he  justifies  the  substitution  of  pouring,  or  sprinkling, 


REPLY   TO    REV.    E.    BICKERSTETH.  261 

for  immersion,  by  the  authority  of  his  church  ?  If  such  principles  of 
reasoning  are  not  abandoned,  the  day  of  judgment  will  come  and  find 
us  still  divided. 

That  the  utmost  forbearance  ought  to  be  exercised  on  this  and  every 
other  subject  on  which  there  is  a  difference  among  Christians,  I  not  only 
freely  admit,  but   strenuously  contend;    but  when   Christians   submit 
their  reasonings  to  influence  others,  these  reasonings  must  be  tried  by 
the  most  rigorous  test  of  truth.     To  our  brethren  in  error  we  ought  to 
manifest  forbearance;  to  the  defence  of  their  errors  no  indulgence  is  due. 
If  their  reasonings  are  not  only  inconclusive,  but  if  they  lay  a  foundation 
for  other  errors,  they  must  be  exposed  in  all  their  deformity  for  the 
advantage  of  the  whole  Christian  brotherhood.     We  should  not  judge 
the  individual,  but  we  should  unsparingly  condemn  the  false  reasoning 
and  the  false  principles  on  which  his  errors  rest.  Error  is  more  noxious 
in  a  Christian  than  in  a  man  of  the  world ;   its  influence  tends  to  with- 
draw believers  from  the  authority  of  Christ.     The  salvation  of  infants 
I  do  not  question ;  but  their  salvation  does  not  depend  on  their  faith  and 
baptism.     Faith  and  baptism  are  enjoined  only  on  those  who  hear  the 
Gospel.     But  I  cannot  consent  to  show  my  faith  in  the  salvation  of 
infants  by  administering  to  them  a  rite  which  Jesus  has  not  appointed  for 
them.     An  act  of  will-worship  in  the  parents  will  not  bring  the  infants 
nearer  heaven.     God  abominates  all  human  invention  in  his  service. 
Let  Christian  parents  pray  for  their  children  from  their  birth  and  before 
their  birth;  let  them  teach  them  as  soon  as  they  are  capable  of  learning: 
but  who  hath  required  them  to  baptize  them?     Too  much  cannot  be 
said  to  urge  Christian  parents  to  faithfulness  to  their  offspring ;  but  no 
advantage  can  be  conferred  by  performing  on  them  a  rite  which,  in  their 
case,  Jesus  has  not  enjoined.     Could  evidence  of  infant  baptism  be  pre- 
sented from  the  Scriptures,  I  am  as  ready  to  receive  it  as  I  was  before 
I  gave  up  the  practice.    Every  inducement  is  on  that  side ;  but  I  cannot 
do  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
what  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  have  not  commanded. 


CHAPTER  V. 

INCOMPETENCY  OF  DR.  HENDERSON  AS  AN  UMPIRE  ON  THE  PHILOLOGY 
OF  THE  "WORD  BAPTISM,  PROVED  FROM  THE  UNSOUNDNESS  AND  EX- 
TRAVAGANCE OF  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION  IMPLIED  IN  HIS 
LETTER  TO  MR.  BRANDRAM,  WITH  REFERENCE  TO  THAT  QUESTION. 

Section  I. — False  principles  of  interpretation  are  the  chief  source  of 
the  corruption  of  the  truths  and  ordinances  of  Scripture.  It  is  not  pos- 
sible that  conclusions  so  very  different  on  almost  every  question,  should 
be  grounded  on  the  same  words,  if  on  all  sides  the  same  sound  and  self- 
evident  laws  of  language  were  employed  in  the  deduction.  The  meaning 
of  the  word  baptism  has  no  difficulties  arising  from  its  use,  or  its  origin ; 
and  never  has  been  questioned  by  any  of  the  great  masters  of  Greek 
literature.  The  claims  of  immersion  never  have  been  disputed  but  from 
the  necessity  of  shielding  present  practice ;  and  on  grounds  subversive 
of  sound  criticism.  Immersion  can  be  evaded  only  by  trampling  on 
first  principles,  and  by  establishing  false  principles.  A  more  flagrant 
manifestation  of  this  I  have  never  seen,  than  in  Dr.  Henderson's  letter 
to  Mr.  Brandram.  He  grounds  on  principles  of  interpretation  which, 
if  admitted,  would  render  all  language  definitely  inexplicable.  This 
may  be  supposed  a  learned  question,  but  I  engage  to  take  my  unlearned 
reader  with  me.  To  understand  my  arguments,  and  estimate  their  force, 
I  demand  nothing  but  a  sound  and  an  unprejudiced  mind. 

"  With  respect  to  the  Greek  word  baptizo,"  says  Dr.  Henderson, 
"  after  having  read  almost  every  work  that  professes  to  throw  any  light 
upon  it,  and  carefully  examined  all  the  passages  in  which  both  it  and  its 
derivatives  occur  in  the  sacred  volume,  and  a  very  considerable  number 
of  those  in  which  it  is  found  in  classical  authors ;  we  are  free  to  confess 
we  have  not  yet  fallen  in  with  a  single  instance  in  which  it  can  be  satis- 
factorily proved,  that  it  signifies  a  submersion  of  the  whole  body,  without, 
at  the  same  time,  conveying  the  idea  that  the  submersion  was  permanent, 
i.  e.  that  the  body  thus  submerged,  sunk  to  rise  no  more.*  So  far  as 
has  yet  been  ascertained,  the  word  is  never  used  by  any  ancient  author 
in  the  sense  of  one  person  performing  an  act  of  submersion  upon  another  ; 

*  "It  may  be  proper  to  observe,  that  even  if  it  could  be  proved  that  the  term  was 
used  in  Greek  works  of  classical  antiquity,  in  the  sense  of  plunging  a  person  entirely  in 
water,  this  would  not  determine  the  meaning  attached  to  it  in  the  New  Testament.  It 
is  an  acknowledged  principle  in  sacred  philology,  that  numerous  Greek  words  are  em- 
ployed by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  in  an  altogether  appropriated  or  religious 
acceptation." 

262 


REPLY    TO    DR.    HENDERSON.  263 

yet  it  is  necessary  that  we  bring  this  idea  with  us  to  the  reading  of  the 
New  Testament,  before  we  can  affix  to  baptizo,  as  there  occurring,  the 
sense  of  immersion." 

On  this  single  passage  I  would  rest  the  proof  of  my  charge.  It  teems 
with  false  principles  of  interpretation. 

1.  It  implies  that  in  order  to  prove  that,  with  respect  to  baptism,  the 
word  baptizo  signifies  immersion,  it  is  necessary  to  produce  an  instance 
in  which  it  is  so  applied  to  the  human  body.  Now,  though  we  can 
comply  with  this  requisition,  it  is  arbitrary  and  unphilological.  I  refuse 
to  admit  the  principle  of  interpretation.  The  immersion  of  a  dog  is  as 
good  an  example  as  the  immersion  of  a  saint.  What  the  thing  is  which 
is  to  be  immersed,  we  are  to  learn,  not  from  the  word  baptizo,  but  from 
the  words  in  connexion. 

2.  This  observation  of  Dr.  H.  assumes  as  a  first  principle,  that  no 
examples  can  be  admitted  as  proof  of  the  meaning  of  this  word,  in 
reference  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  but  such  as  refer  to  the  immersion 
of  the  whole  body.  Now  the  extent  of  the  immersion  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  meaning  of  the  word.  The  meaning  of  the  word  is  perfectly 
the  same,  whether  the  action  of  the  verb  extends  to  the  whole  or  only  a 
part  of  the  object.  Whether  in  baptism  the  whole  body,  or  only  a  part 
of  it,  is  to  be  immersed,  we  do  not  inquire  at  this  word. 

3.  This  observation  of  Dr.  H.  implies,  that  when  the  word  applies  to 
cases  in  which  the  person  or  thing  immersed  remains  permanently  under 
water,  it  is  the  word  itself  which  imports  the  permanency  of  the  submer- 
sion. This  is  ridiculously  false.  The  permanency  of  the  submersion 
must  be  indicated  by  something  else.  The  word  in  question  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  after  state  of  the  person  or  thing  immersed.  Whether 
the  person  or  thing  said  to  be  baptized  lies  permanently  at  the  bottom, 
or  immediately  rises,  deponent  saith  not.  Shall  the  word  which  signifies 
to  immerse,  also  signify  to  emerge  ?  But  though  we  refuse  to  submit  to 
this  principle  of  interpretation,  we  could  easily  comply  with  it.  How 
could  Dr.  H.  forget  the  case  of  Naaman?  Did  he  lie  permanently  under 
water?  Was  he  not  immersed  seven  times?  Even  with  respect  to 
Aristobulus,  who  was  eventually  drowned,  it  is  obvious  from  the  account 
in  Josephus  that  he  was  several  times  dipped  before  he  was  entirely  suf- 
focated. If  so,  the  action  of  the  verb  was  performed  on  him  without 
destroying  him.  He  might  have  been  saved  after  having  been  immersed. 
It  was  not  the  word  baptizo  which  destroyed  him.  It  was  the  keeping 
him  too  long  under  the  water  after  immersion.  "  Always  pressing  him 
down  when  swimming,  and  immersing  him  as  in  sport,  they  did  not  give 
over  till  they  altogether  suffocated  him,"  page  458.  This  shows  that  he 
might  have  been  immersed  without  suffocation,  and  that  suffocation  was 
the  result  of  several  immersions. 

4.  The  observation  on  which  I  am  now  animadverting  implies,  that 
in  order  to  prove  that  the  word  signifies  to  immerse  in  reference  to 
baptism,  we  must  produce  an  example  in  every  thing  corresponding  to 
the  Christian  ordinance.  Nothing  of  this  kind  is  necessary  ;  it  is  quite 
enough  to  prove  that  the  word  has  this  signification  in  reference  to 
anything.     From  the  word  itself  we  cannot  learn  that  even  water  is 


264  REPLY    TO    DR.    HENDERSON. 

to  be  used  in  the  ordinance.  An  example  in  which  the  thing  is  im- 
mersed in  oil,  or  in  melted  metal,  is  as  good  as  an  example  from  the 
water  of  the  river  Jordan.  Herod,  in  his  last  illness,  was  placed  by  his 
physicians  in  a  vessel  of  oil;  and  had  this  been  called  a  baptism,  it 
would  have  been  as  good  an  example,  as  if  it  had  been  done  in  water,  as 
a  sacred  ordinance.  From  the  examples  of  the  occurrence  of  this  word, 
we  inquire  merely  the  meaning  of  the  word ;  from  other  words  we  learn 
what  is  essential  to  the  rite. 

5.  The  observation  quoted  from  Dr.  H.  implies,  that  the  application 
of  the  word  to  persons  and  to  things  affects  the  meaning  of  the  word. 
How  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  affected  by  the  objects  of  its  reference? 
It  has  perfectly  the  same  signification  when  applied  to  persons,  that  it 
has  when  applied  to  things. 

6.  Dr.  H.  here  assumes  as  a  first  principle,  that  in  order  to  prove 
immersion  as  the  mode  of  baptism,  we  must  give  an  example  in  which 
the  word  is  used  by  ancient  authors,  in  cases  where  one  person  immerses 
another.  Was  ever  demand  more  unreasonable?  Was  ever  a  law  of 
criticism  more  monstrously  absurd?  What  has  the  meaning  of  the 
word  to  do  with  the  persons  by  whom  the  action  of  the  verb  is  to  be 
performed  ?  Is  it  the  word  itself  that  is  to  determine  this  ?  Dr.  H. 
absurdly  confounds  the  meaning  of  the  word  that  designates  this  ordi- 
nance, with  the  whole  pattern  of  the  rite  in  all  its  parts  and  circum- 
stances. Are  we  to  expect  in  Greek  literature  a  pattern  for  the  whole 
rite  of  Christian  baptism  ?  Can  anything  be  more  extravagantly  unrea- 
sonable than  this  demand  ?  From  Greek  literature  we  are  to  learn  the 
meaning  of  the  word,  and  from  the  New  Testament  we  are  to  learn 
whether  we  are  to  baptize  ourselves  or  be  baptized  by  others!  Can 
sobriety  designate  such  observations  as  anything  but  perverse  cavilling 
to  avoid  the  law  of  Christ  ?  Can  such  arguments  really  weigh  in  any 
conscience? 

7.  Dr.  H.  here  demands  from  ancient  authors  an  example  in  which 
one  person  immerses  another,  yet  an  example  from  ancient  authors  to 
determine  the  meaning  of  the  word  he  accounts  of  no  value.  This  is 
inconsistent  and  absurd.  Ancient  authors  are  competent  to  determine 
the  meaning  of  a  word  in  their  time,  which  must  still  be  received  as  the 
meaning  of  the  word,  except  a  change  is  proved ;  they  are  no  authority, 
whether  in  a  Christian  rite  one  person  is  to  perform  an  act  of  immersion 
on  another,  or  every  one  is  to  immerse  himself.  The  ancients  are  called 
in  to  do  what  they  are  not  competent  to  do ;  and  they  are  refused  to  be 
heard  in  the  testimony  which  they  are  competent  to  give.  Could  any 
evidence  satisfy  men  who  are  so  unreasonable?  Could  any  kind  of" 
proof  overcome  such  obstinacy  ?  Can  the  man  be  in  search  of  truth, 
who  will  not  allow  Greek  writers  to  be  an  authority  for  the  meaning  of 
a  word  in  their  own  language,  while  he  considers  their  authority  essen- 
tial for  the  proof  of  something  enjoined  in  a  Christian  rite  ?  Should 
one  rise  from  the  dead,  he  could  not  satisfy  incredulity  so  perverse. 

8.  Were  it  admitted  as  a  first  principle,  that  in  order  to  prove  that 
baptizo  signifies  to  immerse,  in  reference  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  an 
example  must  be  given  in  which  the  word  is  used  when  one  person 


REPLY    TO    DR.    HENDERSON.  265 

performs  an  act  of  immersion  upon  another,  followed  by  immediate 
emersion,  does  not  Mr.  H.  perceive  that  this  equally  destroys  the  claims 
of  purify,  the  sense  for  which  he  now  contends  ?  Can  an  instance  be 
given  from  ancient  authors  in  which  this  is  used  to  designate  an  act  of 
purification  performed  by  one  person  on  another?  In  making  such 
a  demand,  he  may  have  thought  himself  secure  against  retaliation,  by 
relying  on  the  rites  of  purification  under  the  law.  But  a  little  per- 
spicacity would  have  enabled  him  to  see  that  this  is  a  false  refuge. 
Instances  may  be  produced  in  abundance  in  which  one  person  purifies 
another ;  but  the  case  requires  that  such  purification  shall  be  designated 
by  the  word  in  question.  Can  he,  then,  give  one  instance  from  ancient 
authors,  in  which  the  word  designates  an  act  of  purification  as  performed 
by  one  person  on  another  ?  Now  can  anything  be  more  unreasonable 
than  that  obstinacy  which  demands  from  a  meaning  which  it  rejects, 
a  condition  which  is  equally  wanting  to  that  meaning  which  it  receives 
as  demonstrably  certain?  Can  that  mind  be  in  a  proper  state  for 
weighing  the  evidence  of  truth,  that  is  so  partially  balanced?  This 
is  a  suicidal  argument.  But  could  President  Beecher  or  Dr.  H.  produce 
authority  from  use  proving  that  the  word  in  question  signifies  to  purify, 
I  would  make  no  farther  demand  in  order  to  admit  its  competency. 

Upon  the  whole,  no  word  in  any  language  could  have  its  meaning 
definitely  ascertained  on  the  principles  involved  in  the  passage  quoted. 
The  author  demands  that  the  words  should  determine  the  objects  to  be 
subjected  to  the  action  of  the  verb,  the  persons  by  whom  the  action  of 
the  verb  is  to  be  performed,  and  the  substance  in  which  the  action  is 
performed  by  the  agent  or  the  object  of  the  action.  He  finds  in  the  verb 
the  baptized  person,  the  baptizer,  and  the  water  in  which  the  baptism 
is  performed.  The  word  itself  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  of  these 
things,  whatever  its  meaning  may  be  supposed  to  be.  All  I  require  from 
the  word  is,  the  nature  of  the  action  imported  by  it :  every  thing  else 
I  will  rest  on  its  proper  basis.  Persons  who  do  not  understand  this,  are 
not  qualified  to  enter  into  the  discussion  of  this,  or  any  other  philological 
question.  In  reality,  the  most  illiterate  men  of  good  sense  are  better 
qualified  to  find  out  truth,  than  critics  who  adopt  false  principles  of 
interpretation.  The  man  who  determines  the  meaning  of  Scripture,  as 
he  does  that  of  the  letter  of  his  friend,  is  more  likely  to  find  it  than  the 
man  who  adopts  chimerical  laws  of  interpretation,  that  will  enable  him 
to  prove  any  conceit,  however  forced ;  and  deny  any  truth,  however 
obvious.  I  maintain  that  on  Dr.  Henderson's  principles  of  interpreta- 
tion, there  is  not  a  word  in  language  whose  meaning  might  not  be 
evaded.  Here,  then,  the  battle  must  be  fought.  It  is  useless  to  contend 
about  the  meaning  of  words  in  certain  situations,  till  we  have  agreed  on 
the  great  principles  which  determine  the  meaning  of  words.  As  long  as 
our  opponents  hold  the  principles  of  interpretation  on  which  they  now 
act,  it  is  impossible  for  them  rationally  to  find  truth.  They  may  some- 
times stagger  on  it,  but  it  will  be  merely  at  random. 

Dr.  H.  refers  us  to  Mr.  Ewing's  Greek  Lexicon,  "  where,"  he  says, 
"  the  whole  philological  question  is  treated  with  an  accuracy  and  ability 
which  we  have  not  met  with  in  any  other  work."     He  gives  us  in  a  note, 

34 


266  REPLY    TO    DR.    HENDERSON. 

"  the  admirable  classification  of  meanings  which  the  learned  author 
presents  under  baptizo."  Now  this  will  afford  us  another  criterion,  by 
which  we  may  estimate  the  qualifications  of  Dr.  H.  to  assume  the  chair 
of  an  umpire  on  this  question. 

Section  II. — It  is  not  my  intention  in  this  place  to  discuss  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word :  this  I  have  done  on  many  occasions.  I  shall  here 
confine  myself  to  the  science  of  the  classification. 

The  first  meaning  is,  "  /  plunge  or  sink  completely  wider  water. 
Used  only  in  the  passive  voice  and  in  a  neuter  sense."  Now  here  is 
false  philology  at  the  very  threshold.  The  completeness  of  the  immer- 
sion, as  respects  the  whole  of  the  object,  is  not  expressed  by  the  word 
at  all ;  but  is  known  from  the  connexion.  The  same  verb,  the  same 
voice,  &c,  could  be  used  with  respect  to  a  person  sinking  in  a  quagmire 
up  to  the  knees.  The  verb  does  not  express  that  the  whole  of  the 
object  was  subjected  to  its  action,  nor  does  it  express  that  the  action 
was  performed  in  water.  This  mischievous  philology  brings  into  the 
word  things  that  are  not  expressed  by  it,  but  by  other  words  in  the 
connexion. 

2.  There  is  a  false  principle  in  supposing  that  the  meaning  of  a  verb 
in  one  voice  is  not  authority  for  its  meaning  in  another.  When  it  is 
said  of  a  ship  that  "  it  dips,"  a  foreigner  from  this  example  would  be 
warranted  in  supposing  that  when  he  finds  the  same  verb  in  the  active 
or  passive  voice,  it  has  the  same  meaning  actively  or  passively. 

3.  Nor  is  it  true,  as  Mr.  Ewing  thinks  it  is,  that  in  the  examples 
referred  to,  the  verb  has,  strictly  speaking,  a  neuter  sense.  In  a  free 
translation  it  may  be  rendered  sink;  but  the  word  still  has  its  own 
proper  signification,  and  some  force  is  supposed  to  be  the  cause  of  the 
immersion. 

4.  Mr.  Ewing  says,  "  Neither  in  these  examples,  nor  in  any  similar 
passages,  does  it  appear  that  the  putting  tinder  water  actively,  as  done 
by  a  different  agent  to  the  object  put  under  water,  is  meant  to  be 
expressed  by  baptizo,  but  merely  the  neuter  sense  of  sinking  or  going 
down." 

In  none  of  the  instances  referred  to  by  Mr.  Ewing,  is  the  thing 
immersed  an  agent  in  its  own  immersion.  A  person  sinking  in  water 
unwillingly,  is  not  an  agent.  A  ship  sinking  by  the  winds  is  not  an 
agent  in  its  own  immersion.  When  the  thing  is  expressed  passively,  as 
in  immersion,  it  is  the  weight  of  the  object,  or  the  force  of  the  storm, 
that  is  the  baptizer. 

But  without  any  regard  to  this,  and  granting  that  the  verb  is  strictly 
neuter  in  such  examples,  can  anything  be  more  absurd  than  to  expect 
that  occurrences  of  a  word  in  which  all  agency  is  excluded,  should 
prove  a  certain  kind  of  agency?  If  in  such  cases  there  can  be  no 
agency,  we  do  not  look  for  agency.  But  is  this  any  reason  why  the 
same  verb,  in  an  active  or  passive  sense,  should  not  admit  the  particular 
agency  in  question?  The  verb  itself,  as  I  before  showed,  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  agent  who  performs  its  action ;  and  if  the  verb  is  used 
to  signify  plunge  in  a  neuter  sense,  why  may  it  not  signify  plunge  in  an 


REPLY    TO    DR.    HENDERSON.  267 

active  sense?  No  sound  critic  would  have  made  this  observation.  Are 
not  such  examples,  in  every  view  in  which  they  can  be  considered,  evi- 
dence that  the  word  in  an  active  sense  signifies  to  immerse  1 

When  a  person  says,  "  I  fell  over  the  bridge  and  was  immersed  in  the 
river,"  shall  a  foreigner  show  his  critical  skill  in  the  English  language 
by  alleging  that — "  Here  immersed  is  used  in  the  passive  voice  and  in  a 
neuter  sense ;  and  therefore  it  does  not  appear  that  the  putting  under 
water  actively,  as  done  by  a  different  agent  to  the  object  put  under 
water,  is  meant  to  be  expressed  by  the  word  immerse  ?"  Would  not  an 
Englishman  laugh  at  him  ?  Shall  learned  criticism  for  ever  trample  on 
common  sense? 

5.  "  Ceasing  to  float,"  is  one  of  the  expressions  which  Mr.  Ewing 
uses  for  this  sense  of  the  word.  This  implies  that  the  word  imports  a 
floating  previous  to  sinking.  Now  when  this  is  the  case,  it  is  no  part 
of  the  meaning  of  the  word ;  it  is  as  applicable  when  the  object  sinks 
immediately,  as  when  it  floats  long  before  it  sinks. 

6.  Another  expression  by  which  Mr.  Ewing  characterises  this  sink- 
ing, is,  "  I  cover  with  water  by  sinking  down."  There  is  neither  covering 
nor  ivater  in  the  word.  All  this  false  philology  proceeds  on  the  absurd 
supposition,  that  a  verb  embraces  in  its  meaning  every  thing  in  con- 
nexion with  it,  in  every  occurrence.  The  adoption  of  such  a  principle 
of  interpretation  must  lead  to  confusion  and  error ;  it  is  impossible  to 
follow  it  without  being  led  away  from  truth.  It  betrays  ignorance  of 
the  first  principles  of  language.  Not  contented  with  ascertaining  what 
is  the  action  imported  by  the  verb,  these  philologists  embrace  in  its 
meaning,  the  person  by  whom  the  action  of  the  verb  is  performed, — the 
person  or  thing  upon  whom  the  action  of  the  verb  is  performed, — the 
substance  in  which  the  action  of  the  verb  is  performed, — the  previous 
state  of  the  object  on  which  the  action  of  the  verb  is  performed, — the 
effect  produced  on  the  object  by  the  action  of  the  verb, — the  extent  to 
which  the  object  of  the  action  of  the  verb  is  exposed  to  the  action,  &c. 
They  might  as  well  make  the  word  designate  the  whole  Athanasian  creed. 

The  second  meaning  in  Mr.  Ewing's  admirable  classification  is,  "  I 
cover  partially  with  water."  "  I  am  covered  with  water  to  a  certain 
degree."  Doubtless  it  is  a  very  scientific  classification  that  gives  a  dif- 
ferent meaning  when  it  is  applied  to  a  part  of  an  object,  from  what  it 
has  when  it  is  applied  to  the  whole.  What  has  the  word  to  do  with  the 
extent  or  degree  of  its  application  to  its  object?  It  is  not  the  word  itself 
that  informs  us  that  its  action  is  applied  to  the  whole  of  an  object,  or  to 
a  part :  this  is  done  by  words  in  connexion.  The  word  itself  has  per- 
fectly the  same  meaning  when  it  is  applied  to  a  part  of  an  object,  as 
when  it  is  applied  to  the  whole.  In  the  examples  given  by  Mr.  Ewing,  is 
there  not  information  in  express  words  determining  the  extent  of  the 
immersion  ?  "  It  happened  that  their  march  was  in  the  water  the  whole 
day,  being  baptized  or  immersed  up  to  the  middle."  Is  it  from  the  word 
baptized  here  that  we  learn  that  the  immersion  was  partial  ?  Is  it  not 
expressly  asserted  by  the  words  "  up  to  the  middle?"  Where  is  the  dif- 
ference in  the  signification  of  the  word  baptize  in  this  instance,  from 
instances  in  which  it  applies  to  things  wholly  immersed  ? 


&68  REPLY    TO    DR.    HENDERSON. 

The  other  example  is,  "  The  foot-soldiers  passed  over  with  difficulty, 
baptized  as  far  up  as  the  breast."  Is  it  not  the  expression  "  as  far  up  as 
the  breast,"  that  informs  us  of  the  extent  of  the  immersion  ?  Surely  a 
very  child  will  know  that  the  word  dip  has  the  same  meaning  in  the  ex- 
pression, "  I  was  dipped  over  the  head,"  and  in  the  expression,  "  I  was 
dipped  up  to  the  chin."  Is  there  a  man  or  child  in  England  that  would 
assign  two  different  meanings  to  the  word  in  these  situations?  It  blas- 
phemes science,  it  outrages  common  sense,  to  call  this  classification  an 
admirable  classification  of  meanings.  Were  it  not  that  my  friends  in 
England  think  I  am  too  severe,  I  would  certainly  speak  strongly  here. 
But  I  will  be  as  mild  as  the  summer  breeze. 

I  shall  enable  the  unlearned  reader  to  appreciate  the  merit  of  this  part 
of  the  classification,  by  an  example  of  the  use  of  the  English  word  im- 
merse, taken  from  the  Londonderry  Sentinel.  "  On  Tuesday  morning, 
about  ten  o'clock,  as  his  Royal  Highness  Prince  Albert  was  skating  on 
the  spacious  water  in  the  grounds  of  Buckingham  Palace,  his  Royal 
Highness  unfortunately  passed  over  some  rotten  ice,  which  immediately 
broke  under  him,  and  he  was  immersed  to  the  chin  in  water."  Now 
does  not  every  child  know  that  the  word  immersed  here  has  exactly  the 
same  signification,  as  if  the  Prince  had  been  immersed  over  the  head? 
That  he  was  only  partially  immersed  is  known  not  from  the  word  im- 
mersed, but  from  the  words  "up  to  the  chin."  What  an  admirable  clas- 
sification, then,  is  it,  that  would  have  given  a  different  meaning  to  the 
word  immersed  had  the  water  been  a  little  deeper  and  covered  his  Royal 
Highness  over  the  head !  I  had  scarcely  copied  the  last  extract,  when  I 
read  in  the  next  Sentinel,  that  his  Royal  Highness  "  was  immersed  over 
head  and  ears  in  the  water."  Now  would  any  one  who  speaks  English, 
think  that  the  word  immersed  has  a  different  meaning  in  these  two  ex- 
tracts? Surely  the  word  immerse  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  extent  of 
the  immersion.  Indeed,  according  to  the  philology  of  Mr.  Ewing  and 
Dr.  Henderson,  every  line  in  the  length  of  the  Prince's  body,  and  he  is 
said  to  be  five  feet  eleven  inches,  would  give  a  different  meaning  to  the 
word  immerse,  according  to  the  depth  of  the  immersion.  Were  I  not 
determined  to  be  extravagantly  gentle,  I  should  think  it  my  duty  to  lash 
such  trifling  with  the  utmost  severity. 

But  there  is  an  absurdity  on  the  very  face  of  this  classification,  which 
renders  it  self-evidently  false.  It  is  not  possible  that  the  same  word  can 
designate  both  the  whole  and  a  part  of  an  object.  If  one  meaning 
designates  that  the  action  of  the  verb  is  applied  to  the  whole  of  an  object, 
how  can  another  meaning  of  the  same  word  designate  that  the  action  is 
confined  to  a  part?  And  if  it  is  not  the  word  itself,  but  something  in 
the  connexion,  which  determines  this,  then  the  designation  is  not  in  the 
word. 

The  above  extract  will  apply  to  the  first  meaning  in  the  classification 
also.  The  word  immersed,  it  may  be  said,  is  here  used  in  the  passive 
voice,  and  in  what  Mr.  Ewing  and  Dr.  Henderson  would  call  a  neuter 
sense.  "  Neither  in  this  example,  then,  nor  in  any  similar  passages, 
does  it  appear  that  the  putting  under  water  actively,  as  done  by  a  differ- 
ent agent  to  the  object  put  under  water,  is  meant  to  be  expressed  by  the 


REPLY    TO    DR.    HENDERSON.  269 

verb  immerse."  Can  any  trifling  be  more  extravagant  than  this  ?  Will 
not  every  man  who  understands  the  English  language,  consider  this  as 
determining  the  meaning  of  the  word?  Will  any  man  expect  that  a 
neuter  sense  will  also  be  an  active  sense  ?  The  meaning  of  the  word 
immerse  is  to  be  learned  from  every  occurrence  of  it  in  the  language ; 
whether  in  a  particular  rite  one  man  is  to  immerse  another,  or  every 
man  is  to  immerse  himself,  cannot  be  learned  by  the  word,  but  by  other 
information.  As  long  as  our  opponents  allow  themselves  to  trifle  so 
egregiously,  no  evidence  could  convince  them.  On  similar  principles 
they  might  deny  every  doctrine  in  Christianity.  As  far  as  they  have 
truth,  they  are  not  indebted  to  their  laws  of  interpretation. 

The  third  meaning  in  Mr.  Ewing's  classification  is,  "  I  overwhelm  or 
cover  with  water  by  rushing,  flowing,  or  pouring  upon."  Science,  in 
classing  the  meanings  of  a  word,  will  always  ascertain  the  primary 
meaning,  if  it  is  possible ;  showing  how  every  secondary  meaning  flows 
from  this:  amidst  much  diversity  it  will  generally  discover  a  family 
likeness.  It  will  never  ascribe  a  secondary  meaning  as  long  as  the 
primary  will  serve ;  and  a  third  or  fourth  meaning  will  not  be  assigned 
as  long  as  the  primary  or  secondary  will  apply  to  all  examples.  No 
meaning  will  be  admitted  that  is  not  in  full  evidence  from  examples 
which  necessarily  imply  it.  These  requisitions  are  self-evidently  just ; 
and  no  sound  philologist  will  question  them.  Without  them,  definiteness 
of  expression  would  be  impossible.  Had  Mr.  Evving  attended  to  them, 
instead  of  eight  meanings  to  this  word,  he  would  not  have  found  a 
second. 

Nothing  is  more  easy  than  to  reduce  to  the  primary  meaning  of  the 
word,  all  the  examples  which  Mr.  Evving  brings  to  justify  his  third 
meaning.  I  have  on  other  occasions  disposed  of  every  example  of  this 
kind.  I  shall  here  teach  the  unlearned  reader  to  do  the  work  for  him- 
self, by  justifying  my  criticism  by  an  example  from  his  own  language. 
Mr.  Ewing's  first  example  is,  "  To  arrive  at  certain  desert  places  full  of 
bulrushes  and  sea-weeds,  which,  when  it  is  ebb,  are  not  immersed,  but 
when  it  is  full  tide,  are  inundated."  Now,  even  with  ourselves,  when  a 
part  of  the  country  is  overflowed  by  a  river,  is  it  not  quite  common  to 
say  that  it  is  submerged  by  the  river  ?  Is  it  possible  to  give  a  more 
satisfactory  justification  of  any  expression  ? 

In  the  "  Pastoral  Annals"  we  have  the  following  sentence :  "  The 
peat,  the  common  fuel  of  the  Irish  peasant,  remained  in  great  part  uncut, 
for  the  incessant  rains  of  the  past  summer  had  exceedingly  impeded  that 
important  branch  of  labour.  Much  which  had  undergone  the  first  pro- 
cess of  sowing,  abandoned  from  the  same  cause,  and  submerged  in  the 
accumulating  waters,  or  drenched  by  torrents,  was  irrecoverably  lost  for 
all  purposes  of  firing,"  p.  184.  Will  the  most  stupid  man  in  England 
understand  the  author  as  intending  to  say,  that  the  peat  was  actually 
dipped  under  the  water,  and  not  that  the  water  came  around  it  ?  But 
what  no  wise  man  or  fool  will  say,  with  respect  to  the  language  which 
he  speaks,  a  controversialist  will  solemnly  allege  as  decisive  evidence 
with  respect  to  a  dead  language.  Let  a  foreigner,  with  a  smattering  of 
English,  try  his  hand  on  the  above  extract,  on  Mr.  Ewing's  principles 


270  REPLY    TO    DR.    HENDERSON. 

of  interpretation  "  Here,"  says  the  learned  critic,  "  the  word  suomerge 
cannot  signify,  as  some  foolishly  contend,  to  sink  under,  but  to  wet,  cover 
with  water,"  &c.  The  peat  is  not  put  under  the  water,  but  the  water 
falls  on  the  peat,  or  flows  over  it.  The  word,  then,  here  properly 
signifies,  T  overwhelm  or  cover  with  water  by  showering  down,  or  flowing 
over."  Can  anything  be  more  demonstrative  than  this  philosophical 
criticism  ?   It  is  a  truly  admirable  specimen  of  classification  of  meaning. 

The  other  two  examples,  alleged  by  Mr.  Ewing  to  justify  the  third 
meaning,  are  real  immersions.  "Of  the  land  animals,  a  great  part 
overtaken  by  the  river  are  destroyed,  being  immersed."  The  force  of 
the  current  immersed  them  in  the  river.  "  The  river  rushing  down 
with  a  stronger  current  immersed  many,"  &c.  There  is  not  a  shadow  of 
difficulty  in  such  examples. 

But  in  no  view  can  Mr.  Ewing's  classification  in  this  point  be  looked 
upon  as  scientific.  What  connexion  is  there  between  plunge  and  pour 
upon  ?  How  does  the  latter  rise  out  of  the  former  ?  Mr.  Ewing  may 
fancy  that  he  connects  these  meanings  by  making  them  both  signify  to 
cover  with  water.  But  there  is  no  water  nor  covering  in  the  word. 
To  pour  upon  and  to  plunge  have  no  more  relation  than  any  two  words 
in  the  language.  Besides,  an  object  may  have  something  poured  on  it, 
when  it  is  not  covered  with  it.  Still  farther,  a  word  which  designates 
to  cover  in  a  certain  mode,  cannot  designate  to  cover  in  a  different 
mode.  This  would  render  the  word  unintelligible.  If  it  signifies  to 
cover  by  plunging  in,  it  cannot  signify  to  cover  by  pouring  on. 

Again,  this  meaning  includes  three  meanings,  more  different  than  the 
first  meaning  is  from  the  second.  Rushing,  flowing,  and  pouring  upon, 
are  all  different  modes,  while  there  is  no  difference  in  the  mode,  nor  in 
the  meaning  of  the  word  in  any  respect,  when  it  is  applied  to  the  whole 
of  an  object,  and  when  it  is  applied  only  to  a  part.  A  horizontal 
inundation  is  as  different  from  pouring  upon,  as  either  of  them  is  from 
immersion. 

Again,  this  classification  makes  the  same  word  designate  plunge  and 
pour  upon.  The  same  general  word  may  apply  in  a  general  sense  to 
both,  but  no  word  can  designate  both. 

Besides,  what  relief  do  any  of  these  meanings  bring  to  Mr.  Ewing 
and  to  Dr.  Henderson?  The  thing  said  to  be  baptized  is,  in  every 
instance,  even  according  to  their  own  showing,  covered  with  the  water 
as  far  as  it  is  said  to  be  baptized.  Is  there  anything  like  this  in  their 
mode  of  baptism?  Let  it  be  observed  that  Mr.  Ewing  does  not  here 
make  the  word  to  signify  to  pour  upon,  but  to  cover  with  tvater  by 
pouring  upon.  If  the  object  is  not  covered  with  water,  it  comes  not 
under  this  meaning. 

The  fourth  meaning  in  Mr.  Ewing's  classification  is,  "  /  drench  or 
impregnate  with  liquor  by  affusion,  I  pour  abundantly  upon,  so  as  to  wet 
thoroughly,  I  infuse."  Here  the  lexicographer  mistakes  the  figurative 
for  the  literal  application  of  the  word.  Is  drunkenness  produced  by 
drenching  or  affusion?  Is  a  man  made  drunk  by  pouring  wine  abund- 
antly upon  him  ?  or  by  wetting  him  with  wine  ?  or  by  infusing  wine 
into  him,  as  you  drench  a  horse?     And  I   say  the  same  thing  with 


REPLY    TO    DR.    HENDERSON.  271 

respect  to  immersion.  When  a  drunken  man  is  s*id  to  be  immersed  in 
wine,  there  is  no  literal  dipping.  Whatever  may  be  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  this  is  a  figurative  application  of  it,  and  not  a  distinct  meaning. 
It  is  to  me  overwhelmingly  astonishing  that  a  man  like  Mr.  Ewing 
should  expound  such  phrases  as  "drenched  with  wine,"  as  a  literal 
affusion,  pouring  upon,  wetting,  or  infusion.  I  do  not  expound  the  phrase 
in  the  original  as  a  literal  immersion ;  the  immersion  is  only  figurative. 
Now  a  scientific  philologist  would  first  settle  the  literal  meaning  of  the 
word,  and  then  understand  the  figure  in  conformity  to  this.  The  figu- 
rative use  of  a  word  gives  it  no  new  meaning  in  the  language,  and  con- 
sequently is  not  properly  the  province  of  the  lexicographer.  It  needs 
not  to  be  explained ;  for  a  good  metaphor  contains  its  own  light.  There 
is  no  need  to  hold  up  a  candle  to  enable  us  to  see  the  sun.  Its  beauties 
may  be  pointed  out,  but  if  it  needs  explanation  it  would  be  degraded. 
Besides,  to  explain  or  enumerate  all  the  possible  metaphorical  applica- 
tions of  a  word  is  impossible.  They  are  innumerable,  and  every  person 
has  a  right  to  issue  as  many  new  ones  as  he  chooses,  if  he  does  it  with 
good  effect. 

All  the  examples  under  this  alleged  meaning  are  evidently  figurative. 
No  person,  I  presume,  after  the  thing  is  pointed  out,  will  question  this. 
If  so,  whether  they  are  to  be  understood  in  reference  to  literal  drenching, 
or  affusion,  or  pouring  upon,  or  infusion,  or  immersion,  must  be  settled 
by  the  examples  of  the  literal  meaning  of  the  word.  I  have  no  right  to 
understand  them  in  reference  to  immersion,  till  I  have  proved  that  this 
is  the  literal  meaning  of  the  word  ;  and  Mr.  Ewing  has  no  right  to  refer 
them  to  drenching,  &c,  till  he  has  by  the  use  of  the  language  proved 
that  this  word  literally  has  this  meaning.  This  he  has  not  done :  this 
he  cannot  do.     He  has,  then,  built  his  house  upon  the  sand. 

Mr.  Ewing's  fourth  meaning,  I  observe  also,  includes  different  mean- 
ings.    Is  affusion  the  same  as  infusion? 

The  fifth  meaning  in  the  classification  is :  "I  oppress  or  overwhelm  by 
bringing  burthens,  affliction,  or  distress  upon."  This  use  of  the  word, 
Mr.  Ewing  himself  allows  to  be  metaphorical.  If  so,  why  is  it  a  differ- 
ent class  of  meanings?  Why  is  it  distinguished  from  the  fourth  class? 
Surely  the  fourth  class  is  as  really  figurative  as  the  fifth.  Whether  we 
say  "  drenched  with  wine,"  or  "  immersed  in  wine,"  the  expressions  are 
equally  metaphorical,  and  both  equally  so  with  overwhelmed  with  debt,  or 
immersed  in  debt.  Even  if  figurative  applications  are  to  be  considered 
different  meanings,  why  are  not  all  figurative  meanings  included  in  one 
class?  Is  every  distinct  figure  to  be  a  distinct  class  of  meanings? 
Then,  instead  of  one  class  or  two  classes  of  metaphorical  meanings, 
we  shall  have  classes  innumerable.  To  be  immersed  in  debt,  or  to  be 
overwhelmed  with  debt,  will  be  one  class — to  be  immersed  in  love  will  be 
another,  to  be  immersed  in  trouble  will  be  another,  to  be  immersed  in 
business  will  be  another,  to  be  immersed  in  cares  will  be  another,  to  be 
immersed  in  pleasure  will  be  another,  to  be  immersed  in  icine  will  be 
another,  &c.  &c.  Each  of  these  is  as  distinct  from  the  others,  as 
the  fifth  class  is  from  the  fourth.  This  surely  is  an  "  admirable  classi- 
fication." 


212  REPL1    TO   DR.    HENDERSON. 

Mr.  Ewing  unaccountably  takes  it  for  granted,  that,  in  such  meta- 
phorical expressions,  the  likeness  is  between  the  objects  in  the  figure 
themselves.  But  this  likeness  is  between  their  effects.  I  may  say  with 
equal  propriety  of  a  drunken  man,  that  he  is  drenched  with  wine,  or 
that  he  is  immersed  in  wine ;  but  by  neither  expression  do  I  intend  to 
show  the  way  in  which  the  liquor  was  applied  to  him.  Were  this  the 
case,  I  could  not  use  both  expressions  of  the  same  man  at  the  same  time ; 
for  the  modes  are  different,  and  it  is  only  in  one  mode  that  the  wine 
was  applied.  Overivhelmedwith  debt,  and  immersed  in  debt,  are  equally 
good  figures,  but  neither  of  them  is  intended  to  show  the  way  in  which 
debt  was  incurred  by  the  debtor.  We  may  be  drowned  in  debt,  sunk  in 
debt,  buried  in  debt,  burdened  with  debt,  &c.  &c.  Surely,  then,  such 
figures  are  not  expressive  of  the  way  in  which  debt  comes  on  the  debtor. 
I  venture  to  assert,  that  there  is  no  instance  in  which  the  most  unlettered 
savage  of  the  forest  makes  the  same  mistake  that  is  here  made  by  the 
lexicographer. 

But  what  does  Mr.  Ewing  gain  by  these  his  two  classes  of  meanings? 
Even  were  it  granted  that  they  import  a  difference  of  mode,  all  the 
examples,  even  according  to  himself,  unite  in  showing  that  the  things 
which  are  the  objects  of  the  action  of  the  verb,  are  completely  covered 
with  water.  Has  this  any  appearance  of  countenancing  a  baptism  by 
sprinkling  a  few  drops? 

"  That  it  is  used  in  the  sense  of  pouring  upon,  or  into,"  says  Dr.  H., 
"  every  one  must  be  convinced  who  will  be  at  the  pains  to  consult  the 
important  article  in  Ewing's  Greek  Lexicon  under  Baptizo,  3,  4,  5." 
Now  I  have  taken  a  great  deal  of  pains  with  these  three  classes  of  sup- 
posed meanings,  and  I  affirm  that  there  is  not  one  example  under  any 
of  them  that  will  justify  this  assertion ;  and  I  think  all  my  impartial 
readers  will  now  have  the  same  conviction.  The  fourth  and  fifth  classes 
are  figurative,  and  the  third  is  immersion.  But  even  admitting  that  it 
is  overwhelming,  rushing,  flowing,  inundating,  it  is  not  pouring.  The 
overflowing  of  the  tide,  the  rushing  of  a  torrent,  the  overwhelming  of  a 
flood,  are  modes  of  the  motion  of  a  fluid  very  different  from  pouring  a 
fluid  upon  an  object.  The  examples  given,  then,  to  support  pouring,  as 
one  of  the  meanings  of  this  word,  have  not  even  the  appearance  of 
yielding  their  countenance.  In  every  thing  I  complain  of  a  want  of 
philosophy  in  this  able,  accurate,  and  admirable  specimen  of  lexicography. 

Mr.  Ewing's  sixth  class  of  meanings  is,  "  I  wash  in  general."  This 
meaning  is  not  assigned  on  sound  philological  principles.  Every  exam- 
ple brought  to  establish  it  will  explain  with  perfect  ease  on  the  ground 
that  the  word  signifies  to  immerse.  If  so,  such  examples  cannot  be  a 
safe  foundation  for  a  new  meaning.  This  I  hold  to  be  a  self-evident 
canon,  universally  applicable  to  the  words  of  all  languages.  A  new 
meaning  should  not  be  admitted  while  authenticated  meanings  will 
serve.  Give  up  this  axiom,  and  universal  confusion  and  uncertainty 
will  ensue  on  all  subjects.  The  sixth  meaning,  then,  is  dismissed,  not 
on  the  merits,  but  for  want  of  proof.  The  history  of  the  word  does  not 
prove  that  it  obtained  such  a  meaning.  The  proof  from  2  Kings  v. 
10,  14,  proceeds  on  the  principle  that  words  which  may  in  any  circum- 


REPLY   TO    DR.    HENDERSON.  273 

stances  be  interchanged,  are  perfectly  synonymous.  After  what  I  have 
said  on  this  subject  to  President  Beecher,  it  is  useless  to  give  another 
lesson.  The  man  who  grounds  on  this  foundation  is  not  a  philologist, 
though  he  should  speak  as  many  languages  as  were  spoken  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost. 

But  I  will  enable  the  most  unlearned  reader  to  perceive  the  fallacy 
of  this  argument,  by  reducing  the  example  to  the  English  language. 
"  Go,"  says  superstition  to  the  devotee,  "  bathe  seven  times  in  the  holy 
well :  he  went  and  dipped  himself  seven  times  in  Saint  Ronan's  well, 
and  returned  cured."  There  we  see  that  our  word  dip  is  capable  of  the 
very  use  that  is  here  made  of  the  corresponding  word  in  Greek.  Now 
a  foreigner,  interpreting  English  on  the  principles  of  Mr.  Ewing  and 
Dr.  Henderson,  would,  from  this  example,  prove  to  demonstration  that 
the  English  words,  bathe  and  dip,  are  perfectly  synonymous. 

With  respect  to  Judith  xii.  7,  Mr.  Ewing  says :  "  In  this  case,  the 
washing  could  not  have  been  done  by  immersion,  being  done  at  a  spring 
or  a  fountain."  Why  so,  Mr.  Ewing?  Is  it  not  possible  to  get  timber 
in  the  forest?  Cannot  immersion  be  performed  either  in  or  at  a  foun- 
tain ?  "  The  Syrians,"  says  Dr.  Joseph  Wolffe,  as  quoted  by  the 
Baptist  Magazine,  "  baptize  the  children  in  the  following  manner.  The 
child  is  placed  in  the  fountain,  so  that  a  part  of  the  body  is  in  the 
water ;  then  the  priest  three  times  takes  water  in  his  hand,  and  pours 
it  out  on  the  child's  head,  repeating  at  each  time  the  name  of  one  Per- 
son in  the  Trinity :  after  this  the  body  is  immersed."  Were  not  the 
Castalian  nymphs  said  to  bathe  themselves  in  the  fountain  ?  Can  any- 
thing be  more  absurd  than  to  allege  that  immersion  cannot  be  performed 
at  a  fountain? 

Mr.  Ewing's  other  example,  instead  of  having  any  appearance  of 
supporting  him,  is  directly  and  palpably  against  him.  It  is  not  "  wash 
thyself  in  the  sea,"  as  Mr.  Ewing  translates,  but  "  dip  thyself  into  the 
sea."     Mr.  Ewing  builds  a  bridge  on  pillars  of  ice. 

The  seventh  meaning  in  Mr.  Ewing's  classification  is :  "  1  wash  for 
the  special  purpose  of  symbolical,  ritual,  or  ceremonial  purif  cation." 

I  have  on  different  occasions  disposed  of  the  examples  alleged  by  Mr. 
Ewing  for  this  meaning.  My  business  here  is  merely  with  the  science 
of  the  classification.  Now,  even  admitting  that  the  word  does  sometimes 
signify  to  wash,  there  is  no  propriety  in  making  symbolical  washing  a 
different  class  of  meaning.  The  purpose  of  the  washing  is  not  a  part 
of  the  signification  of  the  word,  but  is  intimated  by  other  words  in  the 
connexion.  In  the  phrase,  washed  from  a  dead  body,  the  word  washed 
has  the  same  meaning  that  it  has  in  the  sixth  class ;  and  the  symbolical 
or  ritual  nature  of  the  washing  is  known  from  the  additional  words 
which  express  it.  That  the  washing  is  for  a  holy  or  religious  purpose, 
is  no  part  of  the  meaning  of  the  word.  Must  a  musician,  when  he 
designs  to  perform  a  sacred  tune,  put  on  holy  fiddle-strings  ?  Washing 
is  washing,  to  whatever  the  word  may  be  applied. 

The  eighth  meaning  in  Mr.  Ewing's  classification  is  :  "  /  administer 
the  ordinance  of  Christian  baptism,  I  baptize."  This  gives  the  word  no 
meaning  at  all,  but  merely  as  the  designation  of  an  ordinance,  without 

35 


274  REPLY   TO   DR.    HENDERSON. 

any  reference  to  anything  which  that  ordinance  teaches  or  represents. 
On  this  principle,  the  rite  might  as  well  have  been  designated  by  any 
junction  of  letters  jumbled  together  at  random,  without  being  previously 
a  word  in  any  language.  In  this  sense  it  has  no  relation  to  any  of  the 
seven  other  senses,  more  than  if  it  had  not  a  letter  in  common  with 
them.  As  far  as  this  meaning  is  concerned,  the  rite  might  not  only 
have  been  performed  in  any  mode,  but  it  might  have  had  any  import 
imaginable.  It  might  have  been  a  symbolical  pollution,  instead  of  a 
symbolical  purification.     This  meaning  is  self-evidently  false. 

This  principle,  however,  is  the  only  safe  one  on  which  to  rest  the 
propriety  of  transference  instead  of  translation.  Undoubtedly,  if  the 
word  has  no  meaning  in  the  original,  but  as  the  designation  of  an  ordi- 
nance, it  should  have  no  meaning  in  a  translation  but  as  the  designation 
of  an  ordinance.  How  could  it  be  translated  if  it  has  no  meaning  ? 
To  give  it  a  meaning  significant  of  anything  but  of  the  rite  itself,  would 
be  to  mislead  the  reader. 

But  how  can  Dr.  H.  agree  both  with  Mr.  Ewing  and  President 
Beecher  ?  Mr.  Ewing  gives  the  word  no  meaning,  but  as  the  designa- 
tion of  an  ordinance  :  President  Beecher  gives  it  the  meaning  of  purify. 
How  can  the  same  man  agree  with  both? 

It  is  a  self-evident  truth  that  any  word  in  a  language  taken  to  desig- 
nate a  new  rite,  must  be  appropriated  according  to  its  meaning  in  the 
language.  If  this  word  has  previously  seven  other  meanings,  it  must, 
in  reference  to  baptism,  be  appropriated  in  one  of  these  senses.  Can 
any  instance  be  pointed  out  in  any  language,  in  which  a  word  is  taken 
from  the  language  and  appropriated  to  the  designation  of  a  rite,  when 
in  that  rite  there  is  no  reference  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the 
language  ? 

As  an  argument  for  transference  instead  of  translation,  Mr.  Ewing 
alleges :  "  From  the  various  senses  in  which,  from  the  foregoing  exam- 
ples, it  appears  that  baptizo  was  used  among  Greek  writers,  it  must  be 
evident  that  no  proper  English  term  could  be  found  when  applied  to 
this  initiatory  rite,  to  convey  a  corresponding  signification."  Here  it  is 
supposed  that  this  word  in  this  application  has  sense  enough,  if  our 
language  could  enable  us  to  express  it  by  a  single  term.  This  eighth 
sense  is  not  only  not  without  sense,  but  it  actually  has  seven  other 
senses  implied  in  its  own  sense.  Yet  the  definition  of  the  eighth  mean- 
ing in  the  classification  denies  it  any  sense,  but  as  the  name  of  a  sym- 
bolical rite. 

The  difficulty,  or  rather  impossibility,  of  translation,  it  seems,  arises 
from  the  impossibility  of  finding  an  English  term  for  this  eighth  mean- 
ing, corresponding  to  the  seven  other  meanings.  Was  ever  absurdity 
so  absurd,  as  the  supposition,  that  a  symbolical  application  of  a  word 
must  embody  all  the  meanings  of  the  word  in  the  language  ?  Is  it  not 
enough  that  it  corresponds  to  that  meaning  of  the  word  on  which  it  is' 
founded?  Should  my  opponents  succeed  in  showing  that  the  word  in 
question  has  several  meanings,  I  would  not  demand  that,  in  reference 
to  baptism,  it  must  have  a  meaning  corresponding  to  each  of  their 
several  meanings.     I  should  esteem  it  quite  sufficient,  if  it  corresponded 


REPLY    TO    DR.    HENDERSON.  275 

to  that  one  of  them  on  which  they  pretend  to  found  it.  Here,  then,  this 
word,  which,  in  reference  to  baptism,  by  definition  has  no  meaning,  but 
as  the  designation  of  an  ordinance,  is  made  to  embody  seven  other  mean- 
ings.    This,  surely,  is  an  "  admirable  specimen  of  classification." 

Here,  then,  are  eight  senses  of  a  word,  founded  on  examples,  all  of 
which  I  have,  with  the  utmost  ease,  reduced  to  one  signification.  If 
simplicity  is  an  essential  in  science,  it  is  obvious  that  my  view  is  the 
most  scientific. 

But  Mr.  Ewing  should  have  added  another  class,  in  reference  to  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit.  This,  surely,  according  to  his  views,  better  de- 
serves a  distinct  place  in  the  classification  than  some  of  the  meanings 
which  he  has  dignified  with  that  distinction.  He  founds  this  use  of  the 
word  on  its  fourth  meaning.  This  is  self-evidently  false.  He  might, 
without  absurdity,  allege  that  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  Christian 
rite  is  founded  on  its  fourth  meaning  in  common  use.  But  the  word  in 
the  phrase,  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  is  incontrovertibly  founded  on  the  rite 
of  baptism,  whatever  may  be  the  nature  of  that  rite,  and  whatever  may 
be  the  import  of  its  name.  Baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  a  figurative  ex- 
pression, founded  on  the  rite  of  baptism. 

The  figurative  baptism,  in  reference  to  sufferings,  should  also,  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Ewing's  classification,  ha«ve  formed  a  distinct  meaning.  This 
is  as  different  from  any  of  his  other  classes  as  his  fourth  class  is  different 
from  his  fifth.  Mr.  Ewing  grounds  this  use  of  the  word  on  the  fifth 
meaning.  Beyond  question,  when  the  sufferings  of  Christ  are  called  his 
baptism,  the  reference  is  directly  to  the  rite  of  baptism,  and  not  to  the 
mode  either  of  his  sufferings  or  of  the  rite. 

Dr.  H.  must  add  an  eleventh  meaning  to  his  classification.  To  purify 
is  very  different  from  wash.  But  Mr.  Ewing's  doctrine  will  not  admit 
this  meaning.  This  gives  a  distinct  meaning  to  the  word,  which  may 
and  must  be  translated.  Mr.  Ewing's  philology  utterly  forbids  and  defies 
translation.     Can  Dr.  H.  consistently  agree  with  both? 

But  we  have  not  yet  reached  the  bottom  of  the  mine  of  absurdity. 
Dr.  H.  declares  that  it  is  demonstratively  certain  that  the  word  in  ques- 
tion signifies  to  purify,  while  with  the  same  breath  he  pronounces  Mr. 
Ewing's  classification  admirable,  though  it  does  not  in  all  its  classes 
contain  the  meaning  which  is  demonstratively  certain.  An  admirable 
classification  truly,  which  does  not  in  all  its  range  include  the  true 
meaning  of  the  word  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism ! 

Why  does  Dr.  H.  attempt  to  couple  Mr.  Ewing  and  President  Beecher 
in  the  same  yoke?  Would  he  have  his  readers  believe  that  the  theory 
of  Mr.  Beecher  is  just  the  completion  of  the  system  of  his  predecessors, 
or  that  it  is  consistent  with  it  ?  If  President  Beecher  is  right,  Mr.  Ewing 
and  all  the  late  defenders  of  sprinkling  or  pouring  are  wrong ;  and  have 
spent  their  energies  in  establishing  error.  There  is  no  more  propriety 
in  Dr.  Henderson's  identifying  himself  with  President  Beecher,  than 
there  would  be  in  my  identifying  myself  with  the  President.  Indeed, 
the  difference  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  me  is  not  so  great  as  is  the  dif- 
ference between  him  and  them.  Yet,  because  his  doctrine  is  contrived 
to  allow  every  one  to  follow  his  own  accustomed  practice,  they  are  willing 


276  REPLY    TO    DR.    HENDERSON. 

to  have  it  thought  that  he  and  they  are  perfectly  agreed.  If  Dr.  H. 
now  says  that  President  Beecher  is  right,  he  must  say  that  Mr.  Ewing 
and  all  the  other  defenders  of  sprinkling  and  pouring  are  wrong.  Presi- 
dent Beecher  will  not  oblige  them  to  alter  their  practice ;  but  he  will 
oblige  them  to  change  their  doctrine.  Why  are  the  sprinklers  so 
willing  to  submit  to  President  Beecher?  Because  they  have  to  change 
only  their  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and  not  to  change  their 
old  practice.  Had  President  Beecher  obliged  them  to  change  their 
practice,  he  would  have  found  them  as  restiff  with  him  as  they  are 
with  me. 

My  last  observation  on  this  classification  is,  that  while  the  seven  pre- 
ceeding  meanings  all  imply  that,  whatever  may  be  the  mode,  the  baptized 
object  is  covered  with  the  water  as  far  as  he  is  said  to  be  baptized,  the 
eighth  meaning  employs  but  a  few  drops. 

Here,  then,  are  the  sources  of  the  error  of  my  opponents.  Is  it  pos- 
sible that,  grounding  on  such  principles,  they  can  come  at  truth  ? 

Section  III. — Dr.  Henderson's  observation  with  reference  to  the 
Syriac  translation  abounds  with  false  principles  and  contradictions.  I 
shall  select  a  specimen.  For  a  full  and  most  satisfactory  answer  to  Dr. 
Henderson  with  respect  to  ancient  and  many  modern  translations,  I 
refer  to  Mr.  Gotch's  examination. 

1.  He  is  as  sure  as  if  he  had  been  with  the  witch  of  Endor,  that  our 
Lord,  in  giving  the  commission,  used  a  certain  word  which  signifies  to 
stand;  yet  he  is  equally  sure  that  President  Beecher  has  given  the  pro- 
per translation  of  the  Greek  word,  which  is  to  purify.  Can  there  be  a 
fairer  specimen  of  contradiction  ?  To  purify  is  not  to  stand.  If,  then, 
baptizo  corresponds  to  the  word  which  our  Lord  is  supposed  to  have 
used,  it  must  signify  to  stand.     This  is  a  new  theory. 

2.  As  President  Beecher  has  attempted  to  prove  that  the  word  baptizo 
signifies  to  purify,  with  respect  to  this  ordinance ;  and  as  Dr.  H.  has 
declared  that  this  proof  is  demonstration,  either  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
was  wrong  in  the  word  he  employed  in  verbally  giving  this  commission, 
and  was  justly  corrected  by  the  Greek  Scriptures,  or  the  Greek  Scrip- 
tures gave  a  false  representation  of  his  commission.  It  is  impossible  for 
any  man  to  agree  with  both.  If  Christ,  when  giving  the  commission  to 
the  apostles,  used  a  Syriac  word  which  signifies  to  stand,  and  if  the 
Scriptures  give  a  Greek  word  which  signifies  to  purify,  the  Scriptures, 
so  far  from  being  inspired,  are  not  a  faithful  uninspired  translation. 
Cease,  Dr.  H,  to  pervert  the  word  of  God :  cease  to  defend  your  error 
at  so  fearful  an  expense :  cease  to  massacre  the  witnesses  of  God's  truth  : 
cease  to  contradict  yourself. 

3.  It  is  self-evidently  false  that  the  word  in  reference  to  this  rite  sig- 
nifies to  stand  up,  or  to  stand  erect.  This  would  correspond  to  the  rite 
in  no  view  ever  given  of  it,  or  which  can  be  conceived.  This  is  evi- 
dently a  desperate  resource,  which  can  serve  the  purpose  only  of  evasion, 
but  which  is  equally  opposed  to  both  the  contending  parties. 

4.  Dr.  H.  says,  that  "  it  obviously  suggests  the  idea  of  a  person's 
taking  his  station  at  or  in  the  water,  in  order  to  have  the  act  of  baptism 


REPLY   TO    DR.    HENDERSON.  277 

performed  upon  him."  Here  is  another  absurdity.  If  the  word  suggests 
the  idea  of  a  person's  taking  his  station  for  baptism,  how  does  it  signify 
the  act  of  baptism?  According  to  this,  we  should  have  another  word  to 
designate  the  act  of  baptism,  as  this  designates  merely  a  previous  process. 
Is  standing  up,  in  order  to  be  baptized,  baptism?  Should  a  person  stand 
up  in  order  to  be  baptized,  as  long  as  Lot's  wife  stood  on  the  plain  of 
Sodom,  this  would  not  baptize  him  in  any  mode.  According  to  this 
lucid  philology,  the  word  does  not  at  all  signify  the  act  of  baptizing. 
For  that  we  must  have  another  word.  Does  the  command  enjoining 
soldiers  to  stand  erect  call  on  them  to  present  and  fire  1 

5.  Yet  while  Dr.  H.  makes  the  word  designate  a  process  previous  to 
baptism,  he  makes  it  again  designate  the  rite  itself.  Is  it  not  the  Syriac 
term  which  designates  baptism  ?     This  is  a  contradiction. 

6.  If  the  word  employed  by  our  Lord  signifies  to  stand  erect,  implying 
that  the  persons  to  be  baptized  took  their  station  in  an  erect  posture,  ai 
or  near  the  water,  does  Dr.  H.  make  his  recruits  of  a  few  days  old  take 
their  station  at  or  in  the  water,  and  stand  erect  in  order  to  receive 
baptism?  Surely  that  which  is  essential  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  is 
essential  to  the  ordinance. 

7.  If  the  word  signifies  to  stand,  to  stand  up,  to  stand  erect,  how 
does  Dr.  H.  makes  it  designate  the  purpose  of  the  standing,  and  the  place 
of  standing  ?  According  to  his  own  showing,  these  circumstances  are 
not  in  the  word. 

8.  It  is  assumed  that  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo,  in  reference  to 
this  ordinance,  is  purify ;  it  is  assumed  also  that  the  version  referred  to 
is  a  translation  of  baptizo ;  must  not  the  Syriac  word,  then,  signify  to 
purify,  if  it  is  a  just  translation  ?  How  can  it  be  a  translation  of  the 
Greek  word,  if  it  signifies  to  stand?  Can  anything  be  more  absurd  than 
to  suppose  that  the  word  which  is  the  translation  of  purify,  signifies  not 
to  purify,  but  to  stand  erect  1 

9.  If  the  Syriac  is  a  just  translation  with  respect  to  this  word,  and  if 
the  Syriac  word  signifies  to  stand  up,  then  baptizo  must  signify,  not  to 
purify,  as  Dr.  Henderson  and  President  Beecher  contend,  but  to  stand 
up,  or  to  stand  erect.  Pouring  and  sprinkling,  and  popping  and  dipping, 
are  all  impostors.     Standing  up  is  the  true  heir  to  the  inheritance. 

10.  Dr.  H.  assumes  that  our  Lord  gave  the  commission  in  Aramaic. 
I  have  no  objection  to  this  as  a  possible  fact.  But  it  is  not  in  evidence 
from  Scripture,  and  can  be  no  foundation  for  a  Scripture  doctrine.  We 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  language  in  which  our  Lord  spoke :  we 
must  be  guided  by  the  language  in  which  his  words  and  actions  are 
reported.  To  go  to  the  language  which  he  is  supposed  so  have  spoken, 
is  to  go  beyond  first  principles.  We  have  no  more  concern  with  the 
language  which  Christ  spoke  on  earth,  than  we  have  with  the  language 
which  he  now  speaks  in  heaven.  Our  opponents  overlook  first  principles 
which  are  as  clear  as  the  light,  and  they  bring  in  first  principles  which 
have  neither  proof  nor  self-evidence.  Here,  in  order  to  have  a  good 
foundation,  Dr.  H.  attempts  to  dig  to  the  antipodes. 

11.  Dr.  H.  assumes,  that  if  our  Lord  spoke  in  Aramaic  he  must  have 
used  the  word  found  in  the  Peshito  Syriac  version.     If  that  word  signi- 


278  REPLY    TO    DR.    HENDERSON. 

fies  to  stand,  there  is  the  most  perfect  certainty  that  he  did  not  use  it:  if 
he  used  that  word,  there  is  the  utmost  certainty  that  in  that  use  it  does 
not  signify  to  st an d;  because  in  that  sense  it  would  not  correspond  to  the 
word  in  the  New  Testament.  What  reason  can  we  have  for  saying  that 
Christ  must  have  used  either  one  word  or  another,  but  as  such  word  cor- 
responds to  baptizo  ?  Is  it  by  necromancy  that  we  are  to  find  out  what 
word  our  Lord  used  on  this  occasion  ?  Do  we  know  anything  of  the 
nature  or  mode  of  this  ordinance,  but  from  the  New  Testament  I  Dr.  H. 
here  absurdly  pretends  to  find  out  the  meaning  of  the  word  used  for  the 
ordinance  in  the  Scriptures,  by  the  word  which  Christ  is  supposed  to 
have  used  in  the  language  in  which  he  uttered  the  commission,  though 
the  word  which  Christ  used  in  conveying  the  commission  cannot  be  even 
guessed  at,  but  from  the  word  used  in  the  New  Testament.  This  is  like 
another  of  the  author's  exploits,  in  which  he  pretends  to  found  the 
doctrine  of  inspiration,  not  on  the  declaration  of  Scripture,  but  on  the 
authority  of  the  Son  of  God,  as  if  the  knowledge  of  the  authority  of 
the  Son  of  God  did  not  itself  rest  on  the  authenticity  of  the  Scriptures ! 

12.  Dr.  Henderson's  advice  to  the  Bible  Society  is  inconsistent  with 
his  confidence  of  conviction  with  respect  to  the  meaning  of  the  word. 
He  believes  that  it  is  demonstratively  proved  that  it  signifies  to  purify. 
How,  then,  can  he  advise  to  transfer  the  word,  or  translate  it  by  any 
other  word  ?  It  is  an  axiom,  as  clear  as  any  in  mathematics,  that  every 
thing  in  the  original,  as  far  as  it  can  be  ascertained,  ought  to  be  commu- 
nicated in  a  translation  of  Scripture.  There  can  be  no  reason  for 
withholding  anything  with  respect  to  one  ordinance  or  doctrine,  that  will 
not  equally  apply  to  every  other.  If  it  is  lawful  to  withhold  the  know- 
ledge conveyed  in  one  word,  it  is  lawful  to  withhold  the  whole  Scriptures. 
If  it  is  lawful  to  mistranslate  one  word,  it  is  equally  lawful  to  mistrans- 
late the  whole.  If  any  translator  believes  that  the  word  signifies  to 
sprinkle,  or  to  pour,  he  is  bound  so  to  translate  it.  If  any  one  thinks 
that  it  signifies  to  purify,  as  an  honest  man  he  must  translate  accordingly. 
But  to  advise  concealment,  or  misrepresentation,  of  what  it  is  believed 
God  has  revealed,  is  most  monstrous.  If  any  translator,  after  all  his 
study,  research,  and  prayer,  is  unable  to  determine  the  meaning  of  this 
word,  I  am  not  the  person  to  blame  him  for  transferring  it.  What  can 
he  do  but  transfer  ?  Every  one  must  act  according  to  his  own  light. 
No  man  ought  to  be  advised  to  conceal  or  misrepresent.  God  is  the 
Almighty,  and  needs  not  the  assistance  of  our  dishonesty.  Jacob  would 
have  obtained  the  blessing  without  his  knavery. 

13.  Dr.  H.  scruples  to  assist  a  translation  which  renders  the  word 
immerse,  while  he  thinks  the  Baptists  very  unreasonable  because  they 
will  not  co-operate  with  the  Bible  Society;  though  they  not  only  decline 
assisting  Baptist  translations,  but  also  assist  translations  which  the 
Baptists  disapprove. 

14.  Dr,  H.  assumes  that  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Greenfield,  that  the  mode 
of  the  ordinance  is  a  matter  of  indifference,  invalidates  his  testimony 
about  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and  of  the  words  employed  by  ancient 
translations  to  represent  it.  Could  any  well-regulated  mind  urge  such 
an  argument  ?    What  connexion  has  an  opinion  regarding  the  importance 


REPLY    TO    DR.    HENDERSON.  279 

of  the  mode  of  an  ordinance,  with  the  testimony  respecting  the  meaning 
of  the  word  which  denotes  it  ?  A  sound  mind  is  better  than  the  gift  of 
tongues. 

15.  Dr.  H.  assumes  that  the  objection  to  the  word  baptize,  on  the 
part  of  the  Baptists,  is  because  it  is  an  exotic ;  and  gravely  proceeds  to 
show  the  same  thing  of  the  term  immerse.  Was  there  ever  such  trifling? 
The  objection  to  the  word  baptize  is  not  because  it  is  an  exotic,  but 
because,  as  an  English  word,  it  is  merely  the  designation  of  an  ordinance, 
without  expressing  the  mode,  which  is  expressed  by  the  word  in  the 
original.  Baptize  has  become  an  English  word,  but  as  an  English 
word  it  has  not  the  sense  of  the  Greek  word  which  it  is  employed  to 
represent. 

Many  people  were  astonished  at  the  verdict  of  the  House  of  Lords 
with  respect  to  Lord  Cardigan :  there  is  not  a  man  in  the  empire  who 
can  have  any  doubt  with  respect  to  the  matter  of  fact.  How,  then,  could 
all  the  noble  lords  lay  their  hands  upon  their  breasts  and  pronounce  the 
words,  "  Not  guilty,  upon  mine  honour !"  There  is  no  reason  for 
astonishment.  According  to  the  first  principles  on  which  their  lordships 
were  bound  to  decide,  their  verdict  could  not  have  been  different.  The 
name  of  the  person  challenged  must  be  accurately  specified  in  the  in- 
dictment ;  and  it  was  not  so  specified.  Just  so  on  this  subject.  As  long 
as  our  opponents  lay  down  arbitrary  and  absurd  principles  of  interpreta- 
tion, it  is  useless  to  present  evidence  from  examples.  Were  they  ever 
so  numerous  and  clear,  the  disputant,  grounding  on  his  first  principles, 
will  lay  his  hand  on  his  breast  and  say :  "  Not  proved,  upon  mine 
honour."  Unless  on  one  side  or  other  our  first  principles  are  false,  how 
is  it  possible  that  the  meaning  of  this  word  cannot  be  settled  ?  It  cannot 
be  from  any  difficulty  in  the  word  itself.  No  word  in  the  language  can 
afford  better  sources  for  definite  decision.  Was  ever  any  word  in  any 
language  so  fully  discussed  ?  Is  doubt  to  be  eternal  ?  I  arraign  our 
opponents  as  establishing  innumerable  false  principles  of  interpretation, 
and  as  trampling  on  many  of  the  clearest  laws  of  language.  Here,  then, 
let  me  be  met.  We  need  not  send  the  jury  into  the  box,  till  we  have 
laid  down  the  principles  on  which  they  are  to  decide  on  the  proof  that 
shall  come  before  them  on  the  evidence  of  examples.  I  call  on  the  un- 
learned of  both  sides  to  judge  for  themselves.  I  engage  to  make  every 
thing  plain  to  every  man  of  good  sense.  My  rules  of  criticism  may  be 
understood  and  estimated  by  men  utterly  unacquainted  with  the  Greek 
language.  They  equally  apply  to  all  languages,  and  to  all  words  of  all 
languages.  Let  me  entreat  the  studious  and  prayerful  attention  of  every 
Christian  to  this  controversy.  To  suppose  that  it  cannot  be  decided 
is  to  insult  the  word  of  God.  Were  it  the  least  of  Christ's  command- 
ments, it  ought  not  to  be  disregarded.  But  the  subject  is  important  in 
itself:  it  is  important  as  it  regards  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the 
churches,  the  translation  and  circulation  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  Word  of  God  on  every  subject.  It  is  a  fearful  thing 
to  teach  the  children  of  God  how  to  evade  his  commandments,  by 
adopting  laws  of  interpretation  calculated  to  extinguish  every  doctrine 
in  Scripture. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


EXAMINATION  OF  A  SERIES  OF  PAPERS  IN  THE  CONGREGATOINAL  MAGA- 
ZINE, ENTITLED,  "  A  CRITICAL  INQUIRY  INTO  THE  MODE  OF  CHRISTIAN 
BAPTISM." 

Section  I. — A  writer  in  the  Congregational  Magazine  undertakes  to 
prove  that  baptizo,  in  reference  to  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  signifies  to 
purify.  Though  in  answer  to  President  Beecher  I  have  fully  refuted 
that  theory,  I  shall  examine,  at  some  length,  what  is  advanced  in  this 
series  of  papers.  The  writer  assumes  that  we  rest  on  the  ancient  use  of 
the  word,  without  reference  to  later  usage.  Nothing  can  be  more  un- 
founded. We  appeal  to  the  practice  of  the  language  universally,  and 
admit  every  sense  of  a  word  that  usage  has  established.  Our  authorities 
embrace  the  whole  period,  from  the  earliest  usage  to  the  times  of  the 
apostles. 

"  If  to  dip,  a  dipper,  a  dipping,"  says  the  writer,  "  be  the  signification 
of  these  words,  (baptizo,  &c.)  then,  unquestionably,  baptism  was  per- 
formed in  this  manner."  This,  certainly,  is  a  valid  inference.  Were  all 
his  reasoning  equally  strong,  it  would  be  impregnable.  The  amount  of 
it  is,  if  the  words  have  such  a  meaning,  then  unquestionably  they  have 
such  a  meaning.  I  am  not  disposed  to  question  this.  Had  he  said,  as  the 
primary  meaning  of  the  words  is  confessedly  such,  if  a  secondary  cannot 
be  proved  from  the  usage  of  the  language,  then  unquestionably  baptism 
was  performed  by  immersion,  he  would  have  said  something  equally 
unquestionable,  and  something  to  the  purpose.  This  is  exactly  the  way 
in  which  I  proceed,  and  in  which  every  one  in  search  of  truth  must 
proceed,  in  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  words  from  written  documents. 

He  adds,  "  If  these  words  have  some  other  signification,  then  it  re- 
mains to  be  considered,  whether,  from  any  other  source,  we  can  learn 
how  this  ordinance  was  originally  administered."  This  I  most  fully 
admit.  If,  in  a  single  instance  in  all  the  history  of  the  Greek  language,  a 
secondary  meaning  can  be  proved,  I  admit  that  such  secondary  meaning 
may  lawfully  compete  with  the  primary,  in  every  case,  and  that  other 
proof  is  necessary  to  decide  the  preference.  Surely  this  is  an  admission 
full  enough.  But  had  the  word  twenty  meanings,  its  meaning  in  every 
occurrence  must  be  capable  of  being  ascertained,  otherwise  there  is 
blame  in  the  composition.  "  It  has  been  thought  enough,"  says  the 
280 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE.  281 

writer,  "  by  the  advocates  of  dipping,  to  show  that  there  is  nothing  in 
the  Bible  to  make  this  sense  of  the  disputed  term  impossible."  This  is 
not  a  fair  representation.  We  do  not  allege  that  it  is  the  true  meaning, 
simply  because  it  is  not  in  any  case  impossible,  but  on  the  ground  that  no 
secondary  meaning  is  in  proof.  A  meaning  may  be  not  only  not  impos- 
sible from  connexion,  but  may  be  entirely  suitable  to  connexion,  yet  may 
not  be  the  true  meaning, — nay,  may  be  the  very  opposite  of  the  true 
meaning.  In  the  expression,  "  He  rode  a  black  horse,"  white  is  as  suit- 
able to  the  connexion  as  black.  Suitableness  to  connexion  is  a  condition  of 
the  true  meaning  of  a  word,  but  it  is  not  a  criterion.  We  are,  therefore, 
infinitely  far  from  saying  what  this  writer  represents  us  as  saying.  What 
we  say  is,  that  when  the  meaning  of  a  word  is  ascertained  by  an 

EXAMINATION  OF  ITS  OCCURRENCES  IN  THE  LANGUAGE  ;  AND  WHEN  NO 
SECONDARY  MEANING  IS  IN  PROOF  FROM  OTHER  PLACES,  THEN  IN  A  DIS- 
PUTED PLACE  NOTHING  BUT  AN  IMPOSSIBILITY  CAN  FORBID  US  TO  APPLY 
THE    PRIMARY  MEANING,  OR  WARRANT  US    TO  ASSIGN  A  SECONDARY.       In 

like  manner  as  to  a  third  meaning: — where  two  meanings  are  in  proof,  a 
third  should  not  be  alleged  in  any  case  till  it  is  proved.  The  competition 
must  be  restrained  to  the  two  meanings  in  proof.  If  a  third  meaning  is 
proved  by  examples,  let  it  come  into  competition,  but  let  a  fourth  be  for- 
bidden, except  on  the  same  condition.  This  canon  is  a  first  truth,  and  no 
candid  man  of  common  sense  will  ever  refuse  to  sustain  it.  It  applies  not 
merely  to  this  word,  but  to  words  without  exception.  For  what  can  forbid 
the  meaning  of  a  word  which  is  in  proof,  when  no  other  meaning  is  in 
proof,  and  when  the  passage  where  it  occurs  can  admit  it  ?  If  the  word 
is  not  proved  in  other  places  to  have  a  secondary  sense,  and  if  in  the  sup- 
posed case  it  is  capable  of  its  proved  meaning,  where  is  the  difficulty  ? 
How  can  such  a  passage  be  proof  that  the  word  has  a  secondary  sense, 
when  in  such  passage  it  is  capable  of  the  primary?  If  the  word  in  the 
passage  can  have  such  a  meaning,  can  it  be  said  that  the  passage  proves 
that  the  word  cannot  have  such  a  meaning?  This  is  to  say  that  the 
same  thing  is  both  possible  and  impossible.  But  if  a  secondary  meaning 
is  in  proof,  then  the  possibility  of  the  application  of  the  primary,  is  no 
evidence  that  it  is  the  true  meaning.  The  claims  of  the  competitors 
must  be  judged  on  other  grounds.  So  far,  then,  are  we  from  saying  that 
mere  possibility  warrants  primary  meaning  in  all  cases. 

"  And  their  opponents,"  adds  the  writer,  "  have  been  satisfied  with 
proving  that,  in  heathen  literature,  another  sense  is  possible."  Now  this 
shows  that  our  opponents  do  not  understand  our  critical  doctrine  on  this 
point.  They  think  they  stand  on  the  same  ground  with  us,  when  they 
allege  that,  in  many  passages,  the  connexion  will  bear  another  meaning 
as  possible.  But  this  we  admit  without  the  smallest  injury  to  our  canon. 
Indeed,  it  is  the  very  thing  which  I  have  often  proved.  The  connexion 
may  admit  many  meanings  which  are  false ;  sometimes  as  willingly  as  it 
admits  the  true  meaning.  I  do  not  ground  the  meaning  of  the  word  on 
the  fact  that  connexion  does  not  make  it  impossible ;  but  on  the  evidence 
of  passages  which  demand  this  sense.  When  I  have  done  this,  I  repel 
objections  by  alleging  possibility.  I  deny  in  this  instance  a  secondary 
meaning,  not  because  connexion  always  makes  a  secondary  meaning 

36 


282  REPLY   TO   THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

impossible;  but  because  no  secondary  meaning  has  ever  been  proved  in 
any  instance.  My  possibility  answers  objections :  the  possibility  of  my 
opponents,  even  according  to  this  writer,  is  the  ground  of  proof  Now 
mere  possibility  is  no  proof;  but  it  is  sufficient  to  repel  objection. 

"  The  principle  which  has  been  assumed  by  those  who  assert  that 
baptism  means  dipping,"  observes  the  writer,  "  which  has  been  some- 
times, though  not  always  asserted,  but  which  has  received  little,  if  any 
support  from  fact  or  reason,  is  this,  that  the  signification  of  the  root  of 
a  word  or  its  signification  in  classic  Greek,  is  most  probably  its  significa- 
tion in  the  New  Testament ;  most  probably  to  such  a  degree,  that  no 
turning  from  the  radical  or  classic  meaning  should  be  allowed,  except 
when  these  are  plainly  impossible."  This  also  is  a  misrepresentation. 
Instead  of  confining  words  in  the  New  Testament  to  the  signification  of 
their  roots,  we  teach,  that  not  only  in  the  New  Testament,  but  in  the 
language  of  all  writers  and  speakers,  many  words  depart  widely  from 
their  roots.  I  have  shown  this  in  instances  of  the  most  extravagant 
departure.  No  writer  has  ever  admitted  or  proved  this  to  a  greater 
extent  than  I  have  done ;  and  I  do  not  confine  to  classic  use  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  Scriptures.  I  admit  all  use  until  the  very  moment 
in  which  the  document  is  written.  Instead  of  teaching  that  no  turning 
from  radical  meaning  should  be  allowed,  except  where  it  is  impossible, 
I  teach  that,  in  a  multitude  of  words,  there  is  a  departure  from  radical 
meaning,  without  any  impossibility  from  connexion.  Where  two  or 
more  meanings  are  in  proof,  which  of  them  is  the  true  meaning  in  any 
passage,  is  to  be  determined  by  other  evidence.  And  with  respect  to 
classic  Greek,  if  any  other  Greek  has  established  a  secondary  meaning, 
I  will  admit  such  meaning  as  a  competition.     Can  truth  require  more? 

"  Accordingly,"  says  the  writer,  "  in  discussing  the  signification  of 
baptizo,  &c,  they  first  look  to  the  root,  and  to  classic  usage."  This  is 
our  avowed  practice.  Certainly,  with  respect  to  all  words,  it  is  the 
natural  process.  It  is  the  process  followed  by  all  philologists.  In 
tracing  the  meaning  of  a  word,  and  its  change  of  signification  if  it  has 
any,  the  natural  course  surely  is,  to  begin  with  its  origin  as  far  as  known, 
observe  its  first  appearance  in  the  language,  and  follow  it  through  every 
successive  stage  in  its  history.  But  we  have  no  objection  to  any  process 
whatever.  Let  our  opponents  commence  at  any  stage  they  choose ;  we 
engage  to  show  that  in  no  stage  of  its  existence  is  there  proof  that  it 
signifies  to  purify,  or  anything  but  to  immerse. 

But  the  author  adds:  "And  then  having  fixed  in  their  judgment  what 
is  the  meaning  in  heathen  writers,  they  take  that  meaning  to  the  Bible, 
and  because  it  is  not  absolutely  impossible  that  the  word  should  have  the 
same  meaning  there,  they  declare  that  it  certainly  has  that  meaning,  and 
none  beside."  In  the  only  sense  that  this  can  serve  the  writer,  it  is  not 
true.  It  implies  that  we  carry  the  classical  meaning  of  the  word  to  the 
Bible,  without  regard  to  a  different  meaning  existing  in  what  they  call 
Hebraistic  Greek.  Now  this  is  not  fact.  We  appeal  to  all  Greek ; 
and  if  there  is  any  Hebraistic  Greek  concerned  in  the  question,  we  have 
it,  because  we  have  all  that  the  language  affords,  both  from  our  own 
industry  and  the  diligence  of  our  opponents.     We  have  not  overlooked 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  283 

a  single  instance.     We  appeal  to  all  Greek ;  and  if  in  any  Greek  we 
should  find  another  meaning,  we  would  admit  it  to  competition,  though 
the  preference  might  be  justly  given  to  the  primary.     In  this  case,  how- 
ever, there  is  no  variation  among  the  whole  range  of  Greek  writers. 
Indeed,  the  question  of  Hebraistic  Greek  has  no  concern  in  settling  the 
meaning  of  any  word.     To  the  interpreter  it  is  no  matter  what  is  the 
principle  which  has  operated  in  the  change  of  the  meaning  of  any  word. 
The  fact  of  a  change  is  what  he  is  to  ascertain.     If  this  is  proved,  he  is 
not  bound  to  show   the  principle,  or  account  philosophically  for  the 
change.     This  is  not  the  business  of  the  interpreter ;  but  of  the  philo- 
logist.    It  is  a  matter  of  great  importance  to  philology,  and  to  the  philo- 
sophy of  the  human  mind ;  but  interpretation  and  controversy  have  no 
concern  with  it.     If  my  opponents  could  prove  the  change  which  they 
allege  in  the  meaning  of  this  word,  they  need  not  deign  to  account  for 
it.     Their  business  is  done,  when  the  fact  of  such  change  is  proved. 
The  difference  between  the  duty  of  a  philologist  and  that  of  an  interpreter, 
is  like  that  between  the  business  of  a  coroner  and  that  of  a  lawyer,  with 
respect  to  the  sudden  death  of  a  person  who  was  the  life  of  a  lease.    The 
certainty  of  the  death  is  all  that  concerns  the  latter ;  the  former  must 
investigate  the  causes  of  his  death.     When  the  interpreter  proves  a 
change  in  the  meaning  of  a  word,  he  grounds  on  it,  without  regard  to 
its  cause ;  the  philologist  endeavours  to  ascertain  the  cause.     Should  I 
ever  find  time  to  finish  my  work  on  the  canons  of  Biblical  interpretation, 
Hebraism  is  one  of  the  things  that  will  demand  consideration.    But  in  as- 
certaining the  meaning  of  any  word,  opinion  of  the  influence  and  extent 
of  this  principle  has  no  concern.     If  a  word  is  proved  by  use  to  have 
changed  its  meaning,  the  change  must  be  admitted,  whatever  may  have 
been  its  cause  :  if  this  is  not  proved,  no  principle  can  prove  its  existence. 
"  It  might  be  supposed,"  says  the  writer,  "  from  the  way  in  which  some 
persons  reason  concerning  words,  that  they  were  almost  unalterable  in 
their  signification ;  that  they  were,  perhaps,  the  most  immutable  things 
met  with  in  this  changing  world."     Who  are  the  persons  to  whom  this 
applies?     There  is  no  one  in  existence  to  whom  it  can  less  apply  than 
to  me.     Have  I  not,  in  that  which  I  have  written  on  this  controversy, 
most  fully  taught  that  words  change  their  meaning?     Have  I  not  given 
examples  showing  that  words  sometimes  change  their  meaning  to  an  ex- 
travagant degree?     But  I  have  also  taught  that  there  are  some  words 
which  have  not  changed  their  meaning  ;  and  that  the  word  baptizo  is  one 
of  them.     In  his  second  paper  this  writer  endeavours  to  prove  that  the 
word  in  dispute  usually  signifies  in  classic  Greek  not  simply  to  dip,  but 
to  continue  for  some  time  under  water.    The  word  is  not  more  applicable 
to  water  than  it  is  to  wine,  or  oil,  or  any  other  liquid.     It  is  not  confined 
even  to  liquids,  but  applies  to  every  thing  that  may  be  penetrated.    And 
the  continuation  of  the  state  after  immersion  is  not  at  all  contained  in 
the  word,  but  is  learned  from  the  connexion  or  nature  of  the  thing. 
Nothing  can  exceed  the  absurdity  of  supposing  that  the  word  should 
designate  both  the  immersion  and  the  state  after  immersion.  Even  duno, 
to  sink,  does  not  imply  continued  submersion.     It  may  be  applied  to  a 
diver  who  immediately  emerges,  as  well  as  to  a  millstone  that  lies  for 


284  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

ever  at  the  bottom.  The  very  words  kill,  die,  &c,  do  not  designate  a 
continuation  of  the  state  induced.  They  are  as  applicable,  when  there 
is  an  immediate  re-animation,  as  if  there  were  no  resurrection.  None 
of  the  examples  alleged  by  him  prove  his  opinion.  Cork  is  said  to  be 
unbaptizable,  not  merely  because  it  will  not  lie  at  bottom  when  forced 
down,  but  because  it  will  not  by  its  own  specific  gravity,  dip,  or  sink. 
It  will  no  more  dip  of  itself,  than  it  will  of  itself  lie  at  bottom.  If  as 
supporting  a  net  it  is  sometimes  covered  with  water,  it  does  not  dip  more 
than  it  sinks :  and  if  it  may  be  dipped,  it  may  also  be  sunk.  If  it  may 
be  forcibly  covered  with  water  at  top,  so  may  it  be  forcibly  kept  for 
ever  at  bottom.  If  when  restraint  is  removed  it  will  rise  from  the  bot- 
tom, surely  when  restraint  is  removed  it  will  remain  at  top.  It  is  said 
to  be  unbaptizable  because  it  will  not  dip  or  sink  by  its  own  weight. 

"  It  is  dipped,"  says  the  writer,  "  but  it  does  not  sink."  But  it  does 
not  dip  more  than  it  does  not  sink ;  and  if  it  is  dipped,  it  may  be  sunk. 
If  external  force  dips  it,  external  force  may  keep  it  in  continued  sub- 
mersion. 

The  example  from  Aristotle,  alleged  by  Dr.  Gale,  contradicts  the 
doctrine  of  this  writer.  The  passage  asserts  that  the  coast  is  not  bap- 
tized at  ebb,  though  completely  overflowed  at  full  tide.  Does  not  this 
imply  that  the  coast  was  baptized  twice  every  day?  The  word,  then, 
cannot  import  a  continued  submersion. 

The  passage  from  Strabo  is  not  fairly  reported :  "  Things  which  do 
not  float  in  other  waters,  are  not  baptized  in  a  lake  near  Agrigentum  : 
they  are  like  wood,  which  may  be  dipped,  but  will  not  sink."  Would 
not  any  one  suppose  from  this  representation,  that  Strabo  had  said  of 
the  things  referred  to,  that  they  might  be  dipped,  while  the  verb  in  ques- 
tion could  not  be  applied  to  them  ?  But  Strabo  says  nothing  like  this. 
Strabo  does  not  say  that  "  they  are  like  wood  which  may  be  dipped,  but 
will  not  sink."  He  says,  "  they  float  like  wood."  If  timber  may  be 
dipped,  so  timber  may  be  kept  at  the  bottom.  Strabo  does  not  say  that 
timber  will  not  continue  at  the  bottom,  although  it  will  sink.  He  says 
it  will  not  sink.  There  is  no  expression  of  continuation  of  submersion 
in  any  of  these  passages. 

With  respect  to  the  baptism  of  Alexander's  soldiers,  can  there  be  a 
better  test  of  the  import  of  the  expression,  than  the  fact  that  it  can  be 
literally  expressed  in  our  own  language?  "  They  marched  the  whole 
day  in  water,  immersed  up  to  the  middle."  The  continuation  of  this 
immersion  is  not  contained  in  the  word,  but  in  the  phrase,  the  whole  day. 
The  word  would  have  been  equally  applicable,  had  it  been  only  a  single 
plunge. 

"  The  same  writer  states,"  says  the  author,  "  that  if  a  man  went  into 
lake  Sirbon,  owing  to  the  density  of  the  water,  he  would  not  be  baptized. 
He  might  dip  himself,  or  be  dipped  into  it,  but  he  would  not  sink,  even 
if  unable  to  swim."  Now  this  is  a  strange  way  of  reporting  evidence. 
I  appeal  to  every  English  reader,  if  he  does  not  gather  from  this,  that 
the  document  makes  a  difference  between  dip  and  sink.  It  neither 
expresses  nor  implies  any  such  thing.  Dr.  Gale's  translation  of  the 
passage  is :  "  The  bitumen  floats  at  top,  because  of  the  nature  of  the 


REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  285 

waters,  which  admits  no  diving ;  for  if  a  man  goes  into  it  he  cannot  sink, 
or  be  dipped,  but  is  forcibly  kept  up."  As  far  as  this  controversy  is 
concerned,  this  translation  is  good  enough,  though  it  is  not  accurate.  It 
is  not  "  admits  no  diving,"  but "  requires  no  swimming ;"  that  is,  the  effort 
of  swimming  is  not  necessary  to  keep  above  water.  It  is  not,  he  cannot 
sink,  but  he  does  not  of  necessity  sink,  that  is,  his  own  weight  does  not 
force  him  down.  The  word  respects  the  dipping  or  sinking,  and  has  no 
relation  to  the  continuation  of  submersion.  The  same  writer  speaks  of 
a  river  whose  waters  are  so  dense,  that  if  a  dart  is  thrown  in  from  above, 
it  is  with  difficulty  the  dart  dips.  Here  the  penetration  of  the  water  is 
designated  by  the  verb  in  question.  Nothing  can  be  more  decisive.  But 
sound  philology  would  never  expect  that  the  same  word  should  express 
both  an  immersion  and  a  continuation  in  that  state. 

"Lucian,"  says  the  writer,  "  introduces  Timon  as  saying,  that '  If  a 
winter  storm  were  to  carry  any  one  away,  and  he  should  stretch  forth 
his  hands,  imploring  help,  he  would  push  down  the  head  of  such  a  per- 
son, baptizing  him,  that  he  might  be  unable  to  rise  again.'  This  person 
was  not  only  to  be  dipped,  but  to  be  kept  under  water  that  he  might  be 
drowned." 

No  doubt  the  intention  of  Timon's  baptism  was  destruction ;  but  does 
this  imply,  that  the  intention  of  every  baptism  is  destruction?  Can 
anything  be  more  ridiculous  than  to  suppose,  that  the  same  word  should 
denote  both  immersion  and  the  intention  of  the  immersion?  Does  not 
Lucian  expressly  declare  the  purpose  of  this  immersion?  Besides,  does 
not  Timon  say,  that  he  would  baptize  the  person  on  his  head,  that  is, 
that  he  would  immerse  him  with  his  head  doionwards ,  that  he  might  be 
unable  to  rise  ?  Does  not  this  imply,  that  rising  after  the  immersion  was 
possible?  And,  after  all  Timon's  efforts,  the  baptized  person  might  still 
have  risen,  as  far  as  either  this  word  or  the  circumstances  were  con- 
cerned. This  is  the  most  astonishing  sort  of  criticism  that  I  ever  met 
with.  The  writer  might  as  well  extract  the  whole  Athanasian  creed 
from  this  verb,  as  extract  from  it  that  it  designates  only  a  continued  im- 
mersion. It  has  nothing  to  do  with  continuation,  or  with  brevity.  Let 
us  try  this  criticism  on  our  own  language.  In  translating  Timon's  ex- 
pression we  should  say,  "  I  would  plunge  him  on  his  head,  that  he  might 
not  be  able  to  rise  again."  "  Here,"  says  the  critic,  "  the  word  plunge 
signifies  not  merely  to  dip  under  water,  but  to  dip  with  the  intention  of 
drowning.  Timon  did  not  dip  the  man  in  order  to  raise  him  immedi- 
ately, but  in  order  to  drown  him.  This,  then,  is  an  immersion  of  de- 
struction— a  continued  immersion.  The  word  plunge,  then,  cannot  be 
applied  to  cases  in  which  there  is  an  immediate  immersion  of  the  plunged 
object."  Would  not  the  most  illiterate  Englishman  laugh  at  the  sapient 
critic?  Yet  this  is  the  very  criticism  employed  on  the  word  in  the 
Greek  language. 

Besides,  intention  and  continuation  are  two  very  different  things. 
There  may  be  intention  without  continuation,  and  continuation  without 
intention.  This  writer  makes  them  identical.  But  this  word  implies 
neither  continuation  nor  intention.  There  cannot  be  a  more  appropriate 
example  of  the  meaning  of  baptize,  with  reference  to  the  ordinance  of 


286  REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE. 

baptism,  than  this.  Timon's  baptism  for  destruction  is  as  good  a  speci- 
men of  the  meaning  of  the  word,  as  is  that  of  John  the  Baptist,  whose 
baptism  was  an  emblem  of  salvation.  No  critic  under  heaven  would 
think  of  extracting  the  intention  or  continuation  of  an  immersion  from 
the  word  that  designates  immersion. 

On  the  example,  "A  pilot  does  not  know  but  that  he  may  save  in  his 
ship  one  whom  it  were  better  that  he  had  baptized ;"  the  writer  remarks, 
"  the  meaning  of  the  word  here  is  obviously  opposed  to  saving;  it  must, 
therefore,  be  not  dipping  but  drowning." 

Even  here  the  word  does  not  signify  droten,  but  has  its  usual  mean- 
ing. That  drowning  is  the  consequence  of  the  immersion  is  known 
from  the  circumstances  in  which  it  takes  place.  Let  us  try  the  criticism 
on  the  English  :  "  The  captain  cast  one  of  the  sailors  overboard."  To 
cast  overboard,  or  to  cast  into  the  sea,  does  not  signify  to  drown ;  but  if 
it  takes  place  in  the  midst  of  the  sea,  drowning  is  the  known  consequence. 
And  if  we  are  not  informed  of  his  escape,  this  is  the  conclusion.  Yet  a 
man  might  be  cast  overboard,  and  escape.  To  cast  overboard,  then,  is 
not  the  same  as  drown.  So  with  respect  to  the  word  in  question.  If  it 
is  said,  "  Better  the  captain  had  plunged  the  fellow  into  the  sea,"  drown- 
ing, we  know,  would  have  been  the  result,  but  it  is  not  designated  by 
plunge.  I  have  no  objection  that  the  word  should  be  here  in  a  free 
translation  rendered  droion ;  and  our  friend  Dr.  Gale  does  so  translate 
it :  but  the  word  has  here  its  peculiar  modal  meaning,  and  nothing  more. 
This  is  a  point  which  on  all  subjects  I  have  been  continually  pressing, 
but  which  I  cannot  get  my  opponents  to  understand.  Words  may,  in 
certain  circumstances,  be  commutable,  when  they  are  not  at  all  identical 
in  meaning. 

"Most  of  the  land  animals,  being  carried  away  by  the  stream,  per- 
ished, being  baptized."  On  this  the  author  remarks,  "  They  would  not 
have  been  hurt  by  dipping;  they  continued  under  water,  and  were 
drowned."  The  Greek  word  baptizo  would  not  hurt  them  more  than 
the  harmless  English  word  dip,  were  there  an  immediate  emersion ; 
and  dip,  if  not  followed  by  an  emersion,  will  be  followed  by  death  as 
its  consequence,  as  well  as  baptizo :  and  the  latter  may  be  followed  by 
emersion  as  well  as  the  former.  The  continuation  under  water  is  not 
here  expressed  by  the  verb  in  question.  The  animals  swam  for  a  time, 
as  they  were  carried  down  the  stream ;  but  at  last  they  sunk,  or  were 
completely  immersed.  The  consequence  of  this  was,  they  perished.  Our 
word  immerse  does  not  express  continuation ;  yet  we  could  say,  "  Being 
immersed,  they  perished."  Indeed,  the  perishing,  so  far  from  being  con- 
tained in  this  word,  is  expressly  mentioned  by  another  word — "  being 
immersed,  they  perished." 

"As  you  would  not  wish,  sailing  in  a  large  ship,  adorned  and  abound- 
ing with  gold,  to  be  baptized,  that  is,  to  be  drowned."  With  respect  to 
this  example,  I  say  also,  that  the  word  in  question  does  not  signify  to 
drown,  though  in  this  situation  this  is  the  consequence.  Could  we  not 
use  our  own  word  immerse  exactly  in  the  same  manner,  in  the  3ame  cir- 
cumstances ? 

'*  Shall  I  not  laugh  at  the  man  who  baptized  his  ship  by  overlading 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE.  287 

it,  and  then  complains  of  the  sea  for  ingulfing  it  with  its  cargo?" 
Can  we  not  exactly  express  the  same  thing  in  English  ?  "  Shall  I  not 
laugh  at  the  man  who  immerses  his  ship  by  overlading  it?"  The  con- 
tinuation of  the  immersion  is  not  in  this  word,  whether  it  is  baptizo 
or  immerse.  The  author  remarks  on  this  example,  "  He  not  only  dips 
his  ship,  he  sinks  it."  He  appears  to  think  that  sink  necessarily  implies 
continuation  :  but  it  does  no  such  thing.  A  thing  may  be  made  to  sink, 
and  be  immediately  brought  up.  This  is  the  case  in  the  ordinance  of 
baptism,  and  in  a  thousand  other  things.  A  thing  may  even  sink  by 
its  own  weight,  and  be  immediately  brought  up.  This  was  the  case  with 
respect  to  the  axe  of  the  prophets,  which  sank  in  Jordan.  Divers  sink, 
and  rise  again.  There  is  no  word  that  has  the  signification  which  this 
critic  confers  on  baptizo. 

The  same  will  apply  to  the  ship  which  carried  Jonah.  If  it  was 
about  to  be  baptized,  to  be  immersed,  or  to  sink,  it  was  just  about  to  be 
lost ;  yet  baptism,  and  sinking,  and  immersion,  do  not  express  continua- 
tion at  the  bottom  of  the  sea.  This  is  the  consequence,  if  nothing  to 
the  contrary  is  expressed. 

With  respect  to  the  death  of  Aristobulus,  the  writer  says,  "  He  was 
not  merely  dipped,  but  he  was  kept  under  water  till  drowned."  Were 
this  exactly  the  case,  it  is  futile.  It  was  not  a  mere  dipping  of  him 
that  killed  him,  but  the  keeping  him  under  water  till  he  died.  But  it  is 
not  said  that  the  assassins  dipped  him,  and  then  kept  him  under  water 
till  he  died.  They  dipped  him  again  and  again,  till  he  was  suffocated. 
This  example  is  the  most  complete  proof,  that  the  word  in  question  does 
not  of  itself  designate  continuation.  The  first  baptism  did  not  destroy 
him ;  they  repeated  the  operation  till  he  was  suffocated.  This  shows 
that  a  man  may  be  baptized  without  being  destroyed.  The  writer 
observes,  that  "  This  baptism  is  mentioned  as  obviously  an  adequate 
cause  of  death."  This,  truly,  is  a  very  sage  observation.  If  a  man  is 
immersed  again  and  again,  till  he  is  suffocated,  does  it  require  any  other 
evidence  to  prove  that  he  is  dead  ?  Suffocation  is  a  very  sufficient  cause 
of  death. 

"  The  historian  says,  that  the  ship  in  which  he  sailed  was  baptized  in 
the  midst  of  the  Adriatic.  It  was  not  only  dipped,  but  it  went  to  the 
bottom  and  remained  there."  Could  we  not  literally  translate  this  into 
English  by  our  own  honest  word  immersion?  "The  ship  was  immersed 
in  the  midst  of  the  Adriatic  ?"  The  word  has  here  its  usual  meaning ; 
the  continuation  at  the  bottom  is  all  inference  from  situation  and  cir- 
cumstances ;  and  will  be  the  result  equally  from  the  English  word  as 
from  the  Greek.  Indeed,  the  expression  is  perfectly  compatible  with  the 
supposition,  that  after  the  sinking  of  the  ship  it  was  by  miracle  raised 
immediately.  The  baptism  and  the  state  that  follows  have  no  necessary 
connexion. 

When  Josephus  says  of  some  persons,  that  they  baptized  the  city,  this 
writer  asserts,  that  the  expression  "  means  not  that  they  subjected  it  to  any 
transient  affliction,  but  that  they  brought  it  to  complete  and  final  ruin." 
In  direct  opposition  to  this,  I  maintain  that  no  such  thing  is  expressed. 
The  immediate  ruin  of  the  affairs  of  the  city  is  the  only  thing  that  is 


288  REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE. 

asserted.  Whether  they  continued  in  that  state,  or  were  retrieved,  is  not 
expressed  by  this  figure,  though  it  may  be  known  from  other  evidence. 
As  far  as  this  figure  is  concerned,  the  affairs  of  the  city  might  have 
immediately  been  retrieved.  Should  the  city  have  been  afterwards  more 
prosperous  than  it  was  in  the  time  of  Solomon,  this  figure  has  nothing 
to  object.  Can  there  be  anything  more  absurd  than  to  argue  that  be- 
cause a  ruined  city  never  recovered,  the  word  which  designates  its  ruin, 
must  be  a  word  that  includes  continuation  of  ruin  ? 

M  There  is  one  passage,"  (in  Josephus,)  says  the  writer,  "  referring  to 
purification  from  defilement  by  a  dead  body,  where  the  word  accords 
with  the  New  Testament  usage."  The  passage  he  translates  thus : 
"  Having  immersed  a  little  of  the  ashes  and  a  hyssop  branch  at  a  foun- 
tain, and  having  also  baptized  some  of  these  ashes  at  the  fountain,  they 
sprinkled  therewith  '  both  on  the  third  and  on  the  seventh  day,  those 
who  had  been  defiled  by  a  corpse.'  The  baptizing  is  here  mentioned 
as  something  distinct  from  the  dipping,  subsequent  to  it,  and  applying 
only  to  the  ashes.  Both  the  ashes  and  the  hyssop  branch  were  dipped, 
the  former  only  were  baptized,  i.  e.,  purified." 

On  this  I  remark  :  1.  The  writer  translates  enientes  by  the  word  im- 
mersed,  and  says  that  the  immersion  is  stated  as  different  from  the  bap- 
tism. This  is  not  correct.  Enientes  is  not  immersed.  This  is  not  a  modal 
word  at  all.  It  is  a  generic  term,  and  signifies  to  put  in,  without  any 
respect  to  manner.  Ashes,  when  put  loosely  into  water,  are  not  said  to 
be  immersed,  as  they  do  not  immediately  sink.  A  powder  is  usually 
said  to  be  cast  into  water,  to  be  throien  into  icater,  or  to  be  put  into  icater 
— not  to  be  immersed  in  icater.  Accordingly,  the  Greek  term  exactly 
corresponds  to  this  idea.  It  cannot  be  translated  by  the  word  immersed 
or  dipped.  Is  it  not  most  perverse  to  refuse  to  give  its  modal  meaning 
to  a  word  which  is  not,  in  all  the  Greek  language,  proved  to  have  any 
other  than  a  modal  meaning,  and  to  bestow  this  modal  meaning  on  a 
word  which  never  has  a  modal  meaning?  What  are  the  boundaries  of 
the  extravagance  employed  to  set  aside  this  ordinance  of  God !  How 
easily  are  our  opponents  satisfied  that  a  word  signifies  to  immerse,  if  that 
word  has  nothing  to  do  with  baptism ! 

2.  The  punctuation  of  the  words  of  Josephus  is  evidently  wrong,  and 
has  been  made  without  attention  to  the  rite  as  described  by  Moses. 
The  hyssop  was  not  cast  into  the  water  with  the  ashes ;  but  the  ashes 
being  cast  into  the  water,  the  hyssop  branch  was  dipped,  that  by  means 
of  it  the  unclean  person  might  be  sprinkled.  The  comma,  then,  ought 
to  be  before  hyssop.  "  Having  put  a  little  ashes  into  the  water,  and 
having  dipped  a  branch  of  hyssop,"  &c.  This  is  definitely  described 
by  Numbers  xix.  "  And  a  clean  man  shall  take  hyssop,  and  dip  it  into 
the  water,"  &c. 

3.  The  comparison  of  Josephus  with  the  Septuagint  determines  the 
meaning  of  the  word  baptizo.  It  is  used  here  by  Josephus  to  express 
the  same  thing,  which  the  Septuagint  expresses  by  bapto,  which  without 
controversy  is  dip.  It  dips  the  branch  of  hyssop.  Here  a  Hebraistic 
Greek  writer,  even  in  reference  to  a  sacred  rite  of  purification,  uses  the 
word  for  immersion. 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE.  289 

4.  The  ashes  were  not  to  be  purified  in  the  water :  the  ashes  mixed 
with  the  water,  were  the  means  of  purification.  The  water  could  not 
have  purified  without  the  ashes. 

5.  It  is  not  "  at  the  fountain,"  but  "  into  the  fountain."  The  ashes 
were  put  into  the  fountain — not  put  into  something  else  at  the  fountain : 
the  branch  of  hyssop  was  dipped  into  the  fountain,  not  dipped  into  some- 
thing else  at  the  fountain. 

6.  Josephus  here,  in  what  way  soever  his  words  may  be  translated, 
makes  an  addition  to  the  account  of  Moses.  He  casts  some  of  the  ashes 
into  the  fountain  to  make  the  water  of  purification ;  and  some  of  the 
ashes  he  dips  in  such  a  way  that  they  may  be  taken  out,  and  sprinkled 
on  the  person  to  be  purified.  However  he  is  to  be  understood,  his  words 
are  to  be  translated,  "  and  having  immersed  a  branch  of  hyssop  and 
also  a  little  of  the  same  ashes  into,"  &c.  As  the  ashes  that  were  to  be 
immersed  were  to  be  sprinkled  on  the  person  to  the  purified,  they  must 
have  been  put  into  the  water  in  a  bag  as  in  cookery,  or  in  such  a  way 
that  they  could  be  taken  out.  This  is  evidently  the  meaning  of  Josephus, 
though  it  is  not  enjoined  in  the  law  of  Moses. 

7.  The  translation  of  the  words  of  Josephus  by  this  writer,  implies 
this  equally  with  mine.  His  rendering  is,  "  having  also  baptized  some 
of  those  ashes  at  the  fountain,  they  sprinkled  therewith."  That  is,  they 
sprinkled  with  those  ashes.  The  ashes,  then,  according  to  this,  were 
sprinkled  on  the  unclean,  as  well  as  the  water  of  purification  by  the 
branch  of  hyssop. 

8.  There  is  also  a  difference  between  Moses  and  Josephus  in  the  pre- 
paration of  the  water  of  purification.  Moses  commands  the  water  to  be 
put  on  the  ashes :  Josephus  puts  the  ashes  on  the  water.  The  reason  of 
this  difference  is  obviously  that  Moses  prepares  the  water  in  a  vessel, 
while  Josephus  employs  the  whole  fountain,  in  which  process  the  water 
could  not  be  put  on  the  ashes. 

"  It  should  be  remarked,"  says  the  writer,  "  that  not  only  does  it 
appear  in  these  passages  that  the  object  baptized  continued  under  water, 
but  it  is  also  clear  that  the  writers  direct  attention  to  this  point.  This 
continuance  is  therefore  not  only  a  part  of  the  object  referred  to,  but  it 
is  a  part  of  the  signification  of  the  term." 

1.  My  philosophy  draws  a  directly  contrary  conclusion  from  these 
premises.  If  the  writers  referred  to  draw  attention  to  the  point  that  the 
objects  immersed  continued  under  water,  the  continuation  under  water  is 
no  part  of  the  meaning  of  the  word.  In  all  these  passages  the  continuation 
under  water  is  gathered  from  the  circumstances,  or  is  expressly  related. 

2.  The  writer  has  previously  admitted  that  "  an  examination  of  the 
passages  which  have  been  adduced  will  show  that  it  very  rarely  has  this 
sense,"  that  is,  the  sense  of  dipping  without  continuation.  Now  if  it 
never  so  rarely  has  this  signification,  it  is  enough  for  me.  The  nature 
and  intention  of  the  ordinance  will  show  that  the  persons  to  be  immersed 
are  not  to  be  kept  continually  under  water. 

3.  If  in  any  instances,  however  rare,  the  word  applies  to  cases  in 
which  there  is  no  continuation,  then  continuation  cannot  be  a  part  of 
the  meaning  of  the  word. 


290  REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

4.  If  there  are  some  instances  in  which  the  verb  is  applied  to  cases 
in  which  there  was  destruction,  and  other  instances  in  which  there  was 
not  destruction,  then  destruction  is  no  part  of  the  meaning  of  the  word. 

5.  The  very  example  brought  by  this  writer  from  Josephus  to  prove 
purify,  proves  immersion  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  word.  What  the 
Septuagint  designates  by  baptizo,  Josephus  designates  by  bapto ;  and  it 
is  not  pretended  that  bapto  signifies  to  purify. 

6.  That  bapto  should  signify  to  dip,  and  baptizo  to  drown,  would  be 
an  odd  effect  of  termination. 

7.  The  case  of  Aristobulus  proves  the  same  thing.  It  was  not  one  bap- 
tism, but  a  succession  of  baptisms,  that  destroyed  him.  The  assassins 
continued  to  immerse  him  till  he  was  suffocated. 

8.  This  doctrine  is  inconsistent  with  the  hypothesis  on  which  the 
meaning  of  purify  is  assigned  to  this  word.  Is  not  the  ground  on  which 
purification  is  alleged  to  be  the  meaning  of  this  word  in  Hebraistic 
Greek,  the  fact  that  dip  was  its  common  meaning ;  and  that  from  its 
being  so  frequently  applied  to  purification,  it  came  at  last  to  signify 
purification  without  respect  to  mode  1  Here,  however,  this  writer,  in 
direct  contradiction  to  this,  assures  us  that  the  classical  meaning  of  the 
word  is  not  dip  but  drown,  or,  continue  in  a  state  of  submersion.  Now 
if  this  is  true,  how  will  the  word  come  to  signify  purification  ?  Upon 
what  principle  could  a  word  whose  common  meaning  is  to  drown,  come 
to  signify  purify  1  Pour  or  sprinkle  would  be  equally  suitable  to  the 
hypothesis,  as  the  groundwork  of  the  process  from  mode  to  purification 
without  respect  to  mode ;  but  neither  of  these  is  the  ground  on  which 
the  purifiers  build  their  superstructure.  They  do  not  contend  either  for 
sprinkle  or  pour  as  the  primary  signification  of  the  word  in  question. 
Could  they  hope  to  make  good  this  as  the  primary  meaning,  we  should 
never  have  heard  of  purification  as  a  secondary,  from  Hebraistic  usage. 
Purification  has  been  contrived  as  a  refuge,  when  they  have  been  hunted 
from  pour  and  sprinkle. 

On  the  supposition  that  the  common  meaning  of  the  word  was  drown, 
and  that  it  was  employed  in  reference  to  this  ordinance,  in  the  sense  of 
purify,  let  us  try  the  operation  on  the  English  language.  Suppose  that 
the  ceremony  of  sprinkling  with  holy  water  had  lately  for  the  first  time 
been  introduced  into  England ;  is  it  likely,  is  it  possible,  that  it  would 
be  designated  by  the  word  drown  ?  When  a  few  drops  of  water  should 
be  sprinkled  on  a  crowd,  would  the  people  be  said  to  be  drowned,  mean- 
ing that  they  were  purified  ?  And  this  is  the  very  thing  that  our  oppo- 
nents do  in  Greek.  They  take  a  Greek  word  which  in  its  classical 
meaning  they  say  signifies  to  drown,  or  continue  in  a  state  of  submer- 
sion for  a  length  of  time,  and  they  employ  it  to  designate  purification. 

Section  II. — The  Author's  General  Observations. — "  Our  first 
general  observation  is,"  says  he,  "  that  the  context  of  the  word  in  the 
New  Testament  is  never  that  which  is  used,  both  in  the  classics  and  in 
the  Scriptures,  to  connect  verbs  signifying  to  dip,  with  that  into  which 
any  object  is  dipped ;  but  on  the  contrary,  the  context  is  always  of  a 
kind  which  proves  that,  literally,  it  means  some  effect  produced  by  water. 


REPLY   TO   THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  291 

Where  bapto  and  baptizo  signify  to  dip,  the  context  is  eis,  with  that  into 
which  the  object  is  dipped ;  as  we  should  say,  He  dipped  into  water, 
&c.  But  this  construction  does  not  once  occur  in  the  use  of  baptizo  in 
the  Septuagint  and  the  New  Testament." 

1.  This  observation  is  rash  and  unfounded.  En  is  found  frequently 
both  in  the  classics  and  in  the  Septuagint,  construed  with  bapto,  signi- 
fying to  dip.  "  Dipping  but  in  cold  water."  Hip.  193.  "  Thou  hast 
plunged  me  in  filth."     Job.  ix.  31. 

2.  Eis  and  en  are  frequently  commutative  in  such  cases ;  and  en  is 
often  used  where  eis  tnight  be  thought  more  appropriate.  Homer  says 
of  Iris,  "  She  leaped  in  the  dark  sea."  We  ourselves  use  both  idioms. 
"  He  leaped  in  the  sea,  or  into  the  sea."  Cowper  says,  "  Eurypylus  is 
shot  into  the  thigh" — in  is  more  usual.  Again,  "  into  his  throat" — in 
might  be  substituted.  Again,  "  Either  to  plunge  some  Grecian  in  the 
shades."  This  is  exactly  a  case  in  point.  To  plunge  in  or  to  plunge 
into  are  good  syntax  both  in  Greek  and  in  English. 

3.  Yet  when  eis  and  en  are  commutative,  they  are  not  identical  in 
meaning.  Each  has  its  peculiar  meaning,  corresponding  to  our  prepo- 
sition in  and  into — the  one  implying  motion,  the  other  rest.  The  writer 
grants  in  the  above  extract  more  than  I  will  receive  from  him.  En 
never  has  the  signification  of  into,  though  it  may  occasionally  be  em- 
ployed where  into  is  more  usual,  and  more  appropriate.  When  con- 
strued with  bapto  or  baptizo,  it  is  not  so  definite  as  eis.  It  designates 
merely  the  place  or  substance  in  which  the  action  of  the  verb  is  per- 
formed. It  will  explain  as  well  in  English  as  in  Greek.  When  I  say 
that  such  a  man  "  was  immersed  in  the  river  Thames,"  all  I  assert  is, 
that  the  action  of  the  verb  was  performed  in  the  river.  It  is  the  verb 
immersed,  and  the  circumstances,  that  must  prove  the  mode.  This  will 
appear  clear  to  any  one  who  takes  an  example  in  which  the  verb  is 
changed.  Such  a  man  "  was  killed  in  the  river."  On  the  other  hand, 
eis  would  express  that  the  action  of  the  verb  was  into  the  water.  Yet  I 
would  rely  on  en  with  the  utmost  confidence ;  because  no  reason  can  ever 
be  given  why  baptism  should  be  performed  in  a  river,  if  there  is  not  im- 
mersion. When  we  say  that  such  a  man  "  leaped  in  the  sea,"  is  it  not  as 
obvious  that  he  leaped  into  the  sea,  as  if  the  word  into  had  been  used  ? 
Do  not  we  ourselves  say  "  immersed  in  the  water,  or  into  the  water  ?" 
Indeed  immersed  in  is  more  common  than  immersed  into.  It  is  always 
more  appropriate  when  the  place  or  the  thing  in  contradistinction  to 
something  else  in  which  the  immersion  is  performed,  is  designed.  This 
perfectly  accounts  for  the  phraseology  of  Scripture  in  respect  to  this 
ordinance.  The  verb  construes  equally  with  them  both  :  in  some  cases 
the  design  of  the  speaker  will  render  one  of  them  more  eligible  than  the 
other ;  while  in  other  cases  either  of  them  will  answer. 

4.  In  the  preceding  extract  the  writer  asserts  that  "  the  context  is 
always  of  a  kind  which  proves  that  literally  it  means  some  effect  pro- 
duced by  water."  So  far  from  proving  that  this  is  always  the  case,  the 
context  never,  in  a  single  instance,  proves  that  the  word  means  some 
effect  produced  by  water.  Even  if  en  should  be  translated  with,  "  baptized 
with  water,"  or  "  sprinkled  with  water,"  does  not  express  the  effect,  but 


292  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE. 

the  substance  with  which  the  baptism  was  performed,  whatever  may  be 
its  mode. 

5.  That  en  construed  with  baptizo  signifies  in,  we  have  the  most  de- 
cisive evidence  in  the  fact  that  the  Christian  writers  who  used  the  Greek 
language  understood  it  in  this  sense.  Theodoret,  speaking  of  the  bap- 
tism of  Theodosius,  represents  him  as  saying,  that  he  had  delayed  his 
baptism,  as  being  desirous  of  receiving  it  in  the  river  Jordan.  The  Latin 
Fathers  also  understood  the  preposition  in  this  sense,  with  respect  to 
baptism,  and  translated  it  accordingly.  Tertullian  writes,  "  dipped  in 
the  Lord."  Jerome  also,  in  exposition  of  the  language  of  the  com- 
mission, says,  "  intingunt  aqua"  they  dip  them  in  water.  Indeed  this  is 
the  very  syntax  which  Greek,  Latin,  and  English  would  use  when  place 
or  substance  is  meant  to  be  expressed. 

With  respect  to  Luke  iii.  16 ;  Acts  i.  5 ;  xi.  16,  I  admit  that  as  far  as 
syntax  is  concerned,  the  verb  might  be  rantizo,  to  sprinkle,  and  the  pre- 
position understood  might  be  translated  with.  But  even  were  it  trans- 
lated with,  the  preposition  expresses  the  baptizing  substance — not  the 
mode  of  baptism.  This  would  be  quite  consistent  with  immersion,  or 
any  other  mode.  But  this  solution  will  not  apply  to  en  Iordane.  This 
must  be  in  Jordan — in  the  river  Jordan — not  with  Jordan  and  the  river 
Jordan. 

The  writer  tells  us,  that  the  common  use  of  the  dative  case  requires 
that  water  is  referred  to  as  means.  No  such  thing  is  required.  As  far 
as  the  dative  case  is  concerned,  it  may  or  it  may  not  be  means,  which  is 
referred  to.  That  the  preposition  en  is  here  understood,  is  clear  from 
the  use  of  it  in  the  contrasted  part  of  the  sentence — "  en,  in  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Now  surely  no  man  would  say  that  en  may  not  be  translated 
in.  "It  must,"  he  says,  "be  translated  by  or  with."  Why  so?  The 
other  is  the  more  common  meaning,  and  it  is  so  translated  here  by  the 
best  judges. 

6.  That  en  construed  with  the  verb  in  question  signifies  in,  is  evident 
from  Mark  i.  4.  John  was  baptizing  in  the  wilderness — not  ivith  the 
ivildemess.  If  this  preposition  refers  to  the  place  of  baptism  in  reference 
to  a  wilderness,  why  may  it  not  refer  to  the  place  in  reference  to  a  river  ? 

7.  Let  the  writer  say  what  verb  he  would  use,  and  what  preposition 
he  would  construe  with  it,  if  he  meant  in  the  most  definite  manner  to 
express  that  a  person  was  immersed  in  the  river  Jordan. 

8.  The  writer  says  here,  that  the  preposition  "  expresses  the  means 
employed  for  some  effect."  But  has  he  not  said,  in  the  very  same  con- 
nexion, that  "it  means  some  effect  produced  by  water?"  Is  an  effect 
the  same  thing  with  the  means  employed  to  produce  it  ? 

"  That  en,"  says  the  writer,  "  sometimes  has  the  signification  of  into, 
is  acknowledged."  This  is  an  acknowledgment  which  I  do  not  demand 
— which  I  will  not  accept.  It  never  has  the  signification  of  into,  though 
it  may  be  frequently  used  where  eis  is  more  common. 

"  The  phrase  en  hudati,"  says  the  writer,  "  is  so  opposed  to  en  pneu- 
mati  in  many  passages,  that  it  is  clear  they  are  correspondent  phrases, 
and  that  the  prepositions  indicate  in  both  the  same  relation."  Nothing 
can  be  more  evident. 


REPLY   TO   THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  293 

"  As  the  latter  cannot  be  rendered  into  the  Spirit,"  he  continues, 
"  for  this  is  unintelligible,  it  must  be  rendered  with  the  Spirit."  Why 
should  it  be  rendered  either  into,  or  loith  the  Spirit  ?  It  can,  and  must 
be  rendered  in  the  Spirit.  To  baptize  in  the  Spirit  is  as  intelligible  as 
to  baptize  with  the  Spirit.  The  expression  is  figurative,  and  must  be 
expounded  by  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  whatever  may  be  its  mode. 
From  the  admitted  correspondence  of  the  two  clauses  of  the  sentence 
above  referred  to,  I  draw  a  directly  contrary  conclusion  from  that  of 
this  writer.  As  the  preposition  must  be  translated  by  the  same  word 
in  both  places,  and  as  en  hudati  is  in  water ;  so  en  pneumati  must  be  in 
the  Spirit :  for  the  figurative  expression  must  conform  to  the  literal,  and 
not  the  literal  to  the  figurative. 

"  The  word  baptizo  must,  therefore,"  says  the  writer,  "  denote  some 
effect  produced  by  water."  Archbishop  Whately,  is  this  logic  ?  May  not 
the  end  of  using  the  action  denoted  by  a  verb  be  to  produce  a  certain 
effect,  though  the  verb  itself  does  not  denote  the  effect?  Even  were 
the  phrase  translated  sprinkle  with  water,  it  would  not  denote  the  effect 
of  the  sprinkling.  Sprinkling  may  have  different  effects,  but  not  one  of 
them  is  denoted  by  the  word  itself. 

In  a  note  the  author  gives  a  number  of  examples  of  the  verbs  in  ques- 
tion, with  their  syntax,  implying  effect  by  means  of  what  is  associated 
with  the  verb.  The  first  is,  "  Stained  with  blood  :"  but  the  verb  here 
is  bapto  as  signifying  to  dye,  and  in  that  sense  it  has  the  effect  in  itself. 
In  that  sense  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  controversy. 

His  translation  of  the  next  example,  "  the  soul  is  weighed  down  by 
excessive  labours,"  is  quite  unwarrantable.  It  is  not  weighed  down,  but 
immersed.  And  where  excessive  labour  is  the  baptizer,  the  effect  is 
obvious.  We  do  not  deny  that  the  syntax  in  question  will  express 
means,  and  that  the  means  employed  may  be  calculated  or  intended  to 
produce  an  effect. 

"  They  wash  in  warm  water."  It  ought  to  be,  "  they  immerse  in 
warm  water."      Washing  is  the  consequence  of  the  immersion. 

"  Thoroughly  imbued  with  integrity,"  ought  to  be,  "  immersed  in 
justice  to  the  bottom."  The  verb  is  bapto,  but  every  scholar  will  per- 
ceive that  it  cannot  here,  as  the  writer  translates  it,  be  taken  in  its 
secondary  sense,  dye.  Eis  bathos,  into  the  depth,  or  to  the  bottom,  shows 
that  the  verb  is  taken  in  its  primary  sense,  and  that  the  primary  sense 
is  dip.  Imbue  to  the  bottom  would  be  nonsense.  This  figurative  expres- 
sion must  refer  to  immersion.  When  we  speak  of  "  going  to  the  bottom 
of  a  subject,"  or  "  into  the  depths  of  science,"  is  there  not  a  reference 
to  immersion  ? 

"  I  am  of  those  who  were  overwhelmed  by  that  mighty  wave,"  ought 
to  be  translated,  "I  myself  am  of  those  who  were  immersed  tinder  that 
mighty  wave."  This  figure  is  a  most  beautiful  example  to  show  the 
nature  of  baptism.  The  wave  was  the  baptizer,  and  under  the  wave 
the  persons  were  immersed. 

"  He  who  with  difficulty  has  borne  his  present  burden,  would  be 
pressed  down  by  a  small  addition."  Not  pressed  down,  but  immersed. 
The  proper  translation  is,  "  would  be  immersed  by  a  small  addition." 


294  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE. 

The  small  addition  to  his  burden  would  sink  him.  Do  we  not  say  the 
same  thing  ourselves?  This  most  definitely  implies  that  baptism  is 
immersion. 

"  His  body  was  made  wet  by  the  dew  of  heaven,"  ought  to  be,  "  his 
body  was  immersed  by  the  dew."  Why  this  is  called  immersion,  no 
person  who  has  a  soul  to  feel  will  need  information. 

He  concludes  the  note  with  the  following  observation : — "  Where  verbs 
denoting  to  dip,  are  construed  with  en  instead  of  eis,  according  to  a  well- 
known  Greek  idiom,  the  sense  is,  to  put  into,  and  to  leave  in "  mix- 
ing myrrh  and  rosin  together,  and  putting  them  in  wine,  dip  a  piece  of 
linen."  "  I  send  you  forth  to  be  as  sheep  in  the  midst  of  wolves  :"  "  he 
put  him  into,  and  kept  him  in  prison."  Matt.  xiv.  3.  This  philology  I 
utterly  reprobate ;  it  is  not  founded  either  in  philosophy  or  in  fact. 

1.  Verbs  of  dipping,  and  verbs  of  motion  in  general,  may,  in  certain 
circumstances,  be  construed  with  en  as  well  as  with  eis.  But  in  no  case 
is  one  of  these  prepositions  put  for  the  other,  or  does  it  adopt  its  signifi- 
cation. It  is  in  virtue  of  its  own  signification  that  it  fills  the  situation. 
No  such  idiom  is  known  in  Greek  more  than  in  English;  it  is  false  on 
first  principles.  Nothing  can  be  more  absurd  than  to  suppose  that  a 
word  will  occasionally  give  up  its  own  meaning  and  adopt  the  meaning 
of  another  word ;  and  fact  does  not  demand  the  supposition  of  such 
absurdity.  The  phraseology  that,  gives  rise  to  it  is  explicable  on  philo- 
sophical principles,  without  departing  from  the  meaning  of  the  word,  or 
assigning  it  the  meaning  of  another.  The  usual  doctrine  of  gramma- 
rians on  this  point  is  unsound  and  pernicious  to  philology  as  well  as 
theology.  Examples  of  the  same  thing  occur  as  frequently  in  English 
as  in  Greek.  I  have  shown  several  instances  in  which  in  and  into  are 
commutative,  without  being  identical  in  meaning ;  and  examples  occur 
every  day. 

2.  In  the  instances  referred  to  in  the  above  extract,  it  is  not  true  that 
the  sense  of  en  is  into.  The  mixture  is  said  to  be  put  in  the  wine,  and 
our  language  will  bear  this  phraseology  as  well  as  the  Greek.  The  thing 
exactly  expressed  is,  that  the  mixture  after  being  so  put,  is  now  in  the 
wine.  But  to  be  now  in  the  wine,  implies  that  there  has  been  a  pre- 
vious mixture  into  the  wine.  Accordingly,  either  in  or  into  will  in  such 
cases  serve  the  purpose,  while  neither  here  nor  anywhere  else  are  they 
synonymous.     Put  it  in  the  wine,  or  into  the  wine — your  choice. 

3.  Dieis,  en  oino,  literally  putting  it  through  in  the  wine ;  that  is,  the 
mixture  was  to  be  not  only  put  in  the  wine,  but  through  it.  There 
must  not  only  be  a  mixture  of  the  myrrh  and  rosin,  but  this  mixture 
must  again  be  mixed  with  wine,  that  the  linen  may  be  dipped  in  it. 
The  writer  is  here  treating  of  verbs  of  dipping.  Does  he  consider  this 
a  verb  of  dipping?  It  is  not  a  modal  word  at  all,  though  in  its  generic 
meaning  it  includes  mode.  The  preposition  en  is  here  connected  with 
putting  through,  not  with  dipping.  The  regimen,  as  far  as  concerns  the 
dipping  substance,  is  to  be  supplied  by  ellipsis.  The  linen  is  to  be 
dipped  in  the  whole  compound  of  myrrh,  rosin,  and  wine. 

4.  Nor  does  en,  in  such  instances,  express  that  the  thing  dipped  is  left 
in  that  state.   It  might  be  brought  out  the  next  moment  after  immersion, 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  295 

for  anything  that  either  the  verb  or  the  preposition  has  to  say  to  the 
contrary.  The  reader  may  see  instances  of  this  in  the  examples  brought 
forward  in  this  work.  According  to  the  philology  of  this  writer,  if  a 
man  put  his  foot  into  mud,  he  may  take  it  out  again ;  but  if,  unfor- 
tunately, he  puts  it  in  mud,  it  must  remain  in  it. 

5.  Nay  more ;  it  not  only  takes  the  meaning  of  into  while  it  retains 
its  own,  but  it  does  more  in  this  situation  than  both  could  do — it  leaves 
the  thing  dipped  in  a  state  of  imprisonment. 

6.  Even  in  the  very  example  quoted,  the  thing  immersed  is  not  left 
in  that  state.  The  myrrh,  and  the  rosin,  and  the  wine,  are  indeed  left 
in  a  state  of  mixture ;  but  it  is  the  linen  that  is  dipped  in  the  compound, 
and  instead  of  being  left  there,  it  is  immediately  taken  out  to  be  em- 
ployed. This  criticism  is  guilty  of  felo  de  se.  But  I  care  not  that  the 
example  implied  that  the  thing  immersed  was  to  continue  in  for  ever ; 
the  leaving  it  in  that  situation  is  not  implied  by  either  the  verb  or  ihe 
preposition. 

7.  With  respect  to  the  two  last  examples  I  cannot  see  for  what  pur- 
pose the  writer  has  quoted  them.  His  critical  dogma  here  brought 
forward  respects  verbs  of  dipping.  Is  send  forth,  Matt.  x.  16,  a  verb  of 
dipping?     Is  put  or  placed,  Matt.  xiv.  3,  a  verb  of  dipping? 

8.  He  is  here  treating  of  the  preposition  en  when  put  instead  of  eis. 
But  in  translating  Matt.  x.  16,  he  does  not  suppose  that  en  is  instead 
of  eis.  He  gives  it  its  own  peculiar  meaning,  in  the  midst,  not  into  the 
midst. 

9.  His  critical  dogma  refers  to  cases  in  which  en  is  construed  with 
verbs  of  dipping.  But  he  does  not,  in  this  example,  construe  en  even 
with  send,  but  with  the  elliptical  verb  to  be — to  be  in  the  midst,  not  to 
send  into  the  midst. 

10.  In  the  phraseology,  Matt.  xiv.  3,  put  him  in  prison,  the  words  and 
kept  him  there,  are  neither  included  in  the  meaning  of  the  preposition, 
nor  of  the  verb.  The  same  expression  would  have  been  used  had  John 
the  Baptist  been  delivered  from  prison  the  next  moment  after  imprison- 
ment. It  will  apply  to  an  imprisonment  for  half  an  hour,  as  well  as 
imprisonment  for  life.  We  ourselves  use  the  same  phraseology ;  we  say 
that  a  prisoner  is  put  in  prison,  or  into  prison,  without  any  design  to 
refer  to  the  duration  of  imprisonment.  But  men  have  great  facilities  for 
profound  criticism  in  dead  languages.  May  we  not  say,  "  the  constable 
put  him  in  prison,  but  the  magistrates  immediately  released  him?" 
When  in  is  used,  motion  to  a  place  is  not  expressed,  but  position,  when 
the  action  of  the  verb  is  finished.  That  motion  into  a  place  must 
precede  rest  in  a  place,  is  necessary;  but  this,  in  the  preposition  in, 
is  understood,  not  expressed.  This  always  expresses  rest  in  the  place 
mentioned. 

Thus  in  every  example  alleged  in  this  note,  I  have  shown  that  the 
philology  of  the  writer  is  unsound.  Let  it  be  observed,  also,  what  a 
multitude  of  meanings  he  is  obliged  to  give  to  bapto  and  baptizo,  in  these 
examples.  First,  to  stain  :  bapto  does  indeed  signify  to  dye,  but  in  this 
sense  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  controversy.  Persons  are  not  dyed 
in  purification.     In  the  second  example  he  makes  baptizo  signify  to 


296  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE. 

weigh  down.  Is  this  to  translate  on  principle  of  any  kind  ?  The  word 
never  has  this  meaning :  the  word  is  here  used  figuratively,  and  must  in 
the  translation  be  guided  by  the  literal  meaning,  which  never  is  what 
this  writer  has  given.  He  might  as  well  have  rendered  the  passage  by 
the  expression,  the  mind  is  weakened  by  excessive  labour.  On  such  a 
principle  as  this,  we  might  give  this  word,  or  any  other  word,  five  hun- 
dred meanings.  His  third  meaning  is  wash :  but  immerse  is  the  trans- 
lation— washing  is  inferred  as  a  consequence  of  dipping.  The  word  has 
perfectly  the  same  meaning  here  that  it  has  when  applied  to  dipping  in 
mud.  The  difference  of  effect  is  known  from  the  circumstances.  Among 
washer-women  is  it  not  often  said,  in  English,  "  Give  that  a  dip,"  mean- 
ing wash  it  1  The  fourth  meaning  is  imbue.  This  meaning  is  palpably 
false ;  because  the  words  into  the  depth,  construed  with  the  verb,  shows 
most  manifestly  that  bapto  is  here  taken  in  its  primary  signification. 
In  the  fifth  example,  he  gives  overwhelm  as  the  meaning.  The  word  is 
used  figuratively  ;  but  the  literal  meaning  is  never  to  overwhelm,  though 
it  will  admit  this  in  a  free  translation.  In  the  sixth  example,  he  gives 
pressed  down  as  the  signification.  This  is  entirely  different  from  the 
second  meaning.  To  press  down  is  quite  a  different  thing  from  to  weigh 
down.  Can  any  fancy  be  more  wild  than  to  render  this  word  in  this 
manner  ?  This  verb  is  a  servant  of  all  work.  It  is  as  expert  in  pressing 
cheese,  and  compressing  hay  for  exportation,  as  in  purifying.  On  these 
principles,  what  is  it  that  it  may  not  be  made  to  signify?  In  the 
seventh  example  he  makes  bapto  signify  to  wet.  This  is  not  a  meaning 
of  the  word,  though  it  may  often  be  substituted  for  it.  To  dip  anything 
in  a  liquid  will  be  to  wet  it ;  still  to  dip  and  to  wet  are  words  of  quite  a 
different  meaning — the  one  only  in  certain  circumstances  is  the  conse- 
quence of  the  other.  Now  there  is  no  more  reason  to  make  bapto 
signify  to  wet,  than  there  is  to  make  dip  signify  to  wet.  The  eighth 
example  gives  the  verb  its  own  meaning,  but  entirely  mistakes  the 
syntax.  Now  what  a  mass  of  philological  confusion  is  this !  Would 
not  definite  interpretation  be  impossible,  if  all  words  were  to  be  trans- 
lated on  these  random  principles?  Is  it  not  self-evidently  clear,  that  if 
I  can  succeed  in  giving  the  same  meaning  to  baptizo  in  every  occurrence 
of  it  in  the  language,  my  doctrine  is  preferable  to  that  which  gives  it  a 
useless  multitude  of  meanings?  If  I  can  explain  on  philosophical  prin- 
ciples, in  perfect  accordance  with  my  view,  every  instance  in  which  the 
word  is  used,  is  it  not  self-evidently  clear  that  there  is  no  ground  to 
allege  a  secondary  meaning?  On  the  other  hand,  let  the  reader  try  if 
he  can  find  any  philosophy  in  the  assignment  of  the  different  meanings 
allotted  to  this  word  by  our  opponents.  They  give  meaning  to  the  word 
in  each  passage — not  from  the  authority  of  first  principles  and  definitely 
ascertained  usage,  but  from  the  supposed  exigencies  of  the  place  from 
antecedent  probability.  They  reason  as  if  every  passage  must  inde- 
pendently ascertain  its  own  meaning;  whereas  in  multitudes  of  instances, 
every  word  may  be,  as  far  as  connexion  is  concerned,  capable  of  having 
a  word  of  opposite  meaning  substituted  for  it,  without  detection  by 
context.  In  such  cases,  established  usage  can  alone  decide.  They  make 
the  word  express,  in  its  own  meaning,  peculiarities  contained  or  implied 


REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  297 

only  in  the  context.  In  this  way  they  can  assign  to  any  word  as  many 
meanings  as  there  are  variations  in  the  connexion.  If  language  could 
be  legitimately  interpreted  in  this  way,  nothing  could  ever  be  proved 
or  disproved ;  no  tongue  could  ever  be  learned.  I  resist  such  licentious- 
ness in  assigning  meaning  to  words,  not  merely  as  it  affects  the  subject 
of  baptism,  but  as  it  affects  every  thing  revealed  in  Scripture :  I  resist 
it,  not  merely  as  it  affects  the  Scriptures,  but  as  it  affects  every  written 
document  that  guides  the  determination  of  man :  I  resist  it,  as  it  makes 
all  language,  either  written  or  spoken,  incapable  of  certain  and  definite 
interpretation. 

But  why  does  the  writer  demand  eis  and  refuse  en  in  construction 
with  bapto  and  baptizo,  in  the  signification  of  dipping,  when  both  the 
classics  and  Hebraistic  Greek  afford  examples  of  both  ?  Was  not 
Namaan  immersed  in  Jordan  ?  Was  not  Aristobulus  immersed  in  the 
pond?  Did  not  John  immerse  in  Jordan,  and  in  water?  And  the 
dative  without  the  preposition,  we  have  in  Alexander  Aphroditus, 
Problem,  lib.  1 :  "  A  power  immersed  in  the  depth,  or  most  inward  parts, 
of  the  body;"  with  a  multitude  of  others  that  might  be  given. 

Thus  I  have  proved  that  the  preposition  en  construed  with  baptizo,  is 
evidence  in  our  favour  ;  and  without  the  occurrence  of  eis  in  a  single 
instance,  would  serve  our  purpose.  But  the  assertion  that  eis  is  not 
found  in  the  syntax  of  this  word  in  the  Septuagint  and  in  the  New 
Testament,  is  not  well  founded.  It  is  found  Mark  i.  9,  "  Jesus  was 
baptized  of  John  into  Jordan.  The  writer  admits  this  in  a  note ;  but 
the  note  is  a  contradiction  of  the  text.  A  general  assertion  in  the  text 
may  be  limited,  or  modified  by  a  note ;  but  a  note  should  not  admit  what 
the  text  universally  denies.  This  is  not  explanation  or  modification,  but 
contradiction,  which  nothing  can  justify.  The  text  says,  "  But  the 
construction  does  not  once  occur  in  the  use  of  baptizo  in  the  Septuagint 
and  the  New  Testament."  The  note  not  only  contradicts  the  text,  but 
takes  away  the  ground  of  the  argument  which  the  text  employs.  The 
argument  is  grounded  on  the  supposed  universality  of  a  fact,  which  the 
note  admits  not  to  be  universal.  If  such  syntax  is  admitted  in  a  single 
instance,  no  argument  can  be  founded  on  its  universal  absence.  It  can- 
not be  alleged,  that  the  want  of  such  a  syntax  evidences  a  change  of 
meaning,  when  such  a  syntax  is  not  wanting.  A  difference  of  meaning 
cannot  be  alleged  from  a  difference  of  syntax,  if  there  is  not  universally 
such  a  difference  of  syntax.  The  writer,  indeed,  in  his  note,  endeavours 
to  give  another  meaning  to  the  preposition,  Mark  i.  5,  but  this  does  not 
alter  the  case,  even  were  the  preposition  capable  of  the  alleged  meaning. 
The  complaint  is,  that  such  cannot  be  the  meaning,  because  there  is  not 
such  syntax.  If  the  syntax  exists  at  all,  the  complaint  is  removed. 
If  in  such  a  sense  the  word  must  have  such  a  syntax,  why  will  you  give 
this  necessary  syntax  another  sense,  just  for  the  purpose  of  evading  that 
sense  which  requires  this  syntax?  But  were  it  a  fact,  that  there  is  not 
one  instance  of  such  syntax,  the  fact  would  not  bear  the  conclusion.  If, 
in  common  use,  any  one  of  two  prepositions  may  equally  be  used,  with 
a  verb  in  a  certain  sense,  any  one  of  them  may  be  constantly  employed 
with  the  verb  in  that  sense.     With  respect  to  some  words  there  might 

38 


298  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

be  but  a  single  example  of  its  syntax  in  the  New  Testament.   Its  syntax, 
then,  must  be  determined  by  common  usage. 

Let  us  attend  to  the  writer's  attempt  to  set  aside  the  testimony  of 
Mark  i.  5.  "  But,"  says  he,  "  as  this  is  the  only  instance  in  which  eis 
is  used,  and  as  it  is  here  connected  with  the  name  of  a  place,  it  is  much 
more  probable  that  it  has  the  common  signification  of  at." 

1.  Here  a  false  first  principle  is  assumed,  namely,  that  one  instance 
may  be  explained  in  a  meaning,  which  it  could  not  have  in  a  number 
of  instances.     Can  anything  be  more  absurd? 

2.  If  it  is  construed  here  with  the  name  of  a  place,  that  place  is  a 
river  in  which  the  immersion  took  place. 

3.  If  in  common  syntax  such  a  phrase  has  such  a  meaning,  why 
should  it  not  have  this  meaning  in  the  syntax  of  Scripture? 

4.  If  to  produce  such  a  meaning,  such  a  syntax  is  necessary  in  com- 
mon language,  why  should  it  be  thought  probable  that  where  such 
syntax  occurs  in  Scripture,  it  has  not  the  same  meaning?  If  the  syntax 
is  necessary  to  the  meaning,  why  is  the  meaning  denied  it  where  the 
syntax  is  found? 

5.  If  in  common  use  the  same  verb  is  sometimes  coupled  with  en  and 
sometimes  with  eis,  why  may  it  not  in  scriptural  use  be  capable,  in  the 
same  sense,  of  the  same  association? 

6.  This  instance  does  not  give,  according  to  our  interpretation,  a  new 
meaning  to  the  preposition,  nor  a  new  meaning  to  the  verb  associated 
with  it,  nor  a  new  syntax  to  the  regimen.  What  reasonable  pretence, 
then,  can  there  be  for  change  ? 

7.  The  meaning  assigned  by  the  writer  is  not  a  common  meaning  of 
eis,  as  he  asserts.  Even  by  those  grammarians  who  give  at  as  one  of 
the  meanings  of  eis,  it  is  not  supposed  to  be  a  common  meaning. 

8.  This  extravagance  is  still  more  aggravated,  when  it  is  considered, 
that  the  prepositions  para  and  epi  appropriately  designate  at ;  and  that 
no  other  prepositions  but  en  and  eis  could  be  employed  in  expressing  an 
immersion  in  or  into  water.  If  these  are  the  only  prepositions  that 
could  be  used  to  express  that  this  ordinance  was  performed  by  immer- 
sion in  or  into  water,  if  there  are  appropriate  prepositions  to  express  at, 
if  water  or  a  river  is  the  regimen,  what  can  the  meaning  be  but  the 
common  meaning  of  the  prepositions  in  and  into  ?  Can  any  reason  be 
assigned  for  giving  another  meaning  to  the  prepositions,  but  an  obstinate 
reluctance  to  admit  the  consequence? 

9.  The  thing  is  still  worse  when  it  is  considered  that  this  extrava- 
gance is  employed  not  only  to  avoid  the  common  meaning  of  the  verb, 
but  to  give  it  a  meaning  that  in  the  Greek  language  is  not  in  evidence 
from  a  single  example. 

10.  But  this  syntax  is  not  confined  to  one  instance  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  it  is  found  in  many  instances.  Eis  is  connected  with  baptizo  in 
the  commission.  Now,  though  water  is  not  the  regimen,  yet  it  is  the 
meaning  of  the  preposition  in  reference  to  the  performance  of  the  rite, 
that  must  regulate  its  meaning  in  all  cases. 

11.  The  early  Christians  who  wrote  in  the  Greek  language  connect 
eis  in  this  sense  with  baptizo.     Eusebius  construes  baptizentcs  with  eis 


REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  299 

onoma — into  the  name.     And  Eusebius  understood  the  verb  as  denoting 
immersion. 

12.  The  early  Latin  writers  understood  the  preposition  in  this  sense. 
Tertullian  has  not  only  tinctus  in  Domino — dipped  in  the  Lord;  but  tin- 
gentes  eos  in  nomen — dipped  them  into  the  name.  Now  Tertullian  knew 
something  of  Greek  syntax.  After  this  shall  we  listen  to  the  modern 
criticism  that  declares  that  such  syntax  is  intolerable!  As  to  the 
soundness,  then,  of  this  syntax,  there  can  be  no  higher  authority.  Do 
our  opponents  pretend  to  make  a  discovery  in  the  meaning  of  Greek 
verbs  and  Greek  syntax,  unknown  to  the  very  persons  who  wrote  and 
spoke  Greek  ? 

In  fact,  the  early  Christian  writers,  both  Greek  and  Latin,  used  both 
eis  and  en  in  speaking  of  this  ordinance,  just  as  the  Scriptures  do,  and 
just  as  we  ourselves  use  the  corresponding  prepositions.  We  say  im- 
merse in  or  into,  while  we  do  not  confound  the  prepositions. 

But  I  go  much  farther.  I  not  only  deny  that  eis  here  signifies  at, — I 
maintain  that  it  never  has  this  signification.  This  is  much  more  than  I 
am  bound  to  prove.  I  might  admit  with  many  that  this  preposition  occa- 
sionally has  the  signification  of  at,  while  I  could  successfully  exclude  it 
from  this  place.  Grammarians  who  teach  the  absurd  doctrine,  that  a 
word  may  occasionally  desert  its  own  meaning,  and  assume  that  of 
another,  confine  this  privilege  to  cases  in  which  the  word  is  totally 
inexplicable  in  its  meaning.  The  doctrine,  then,  in  their  hands  is 
usually  harmless ;  but  in  the  hands  of  controversialists  it  does  mira- 
culous exploits.  They  call  in  its  aid  on  every  occasion,  when  the 
necessities  of  their  case  demand  it ;  and  what  the  grammarians  have 
provided  to  explain  dark  passages,  they  use  to  make  clear  passages 
dark.  But  I  will  take  away  the  whole  foundation  from  under  this 
figment.  I  deny  that  ever  eis  signifies  at.  So  far  from  being  a  common 
meaning,  as  this  writer  represents  it,  it  is  not  a  meaning  at  all.  Let  us, 
then,  examine  the  examples  which  the  writer  alleges  to  prove  this 
meaning.  Luke  ix.  61 :  "  Those  at  my  house."  The  proper  transla- 
tion, however,  is  neither  "  those  at  my  house,"  nor,  with  our  version, 
"  those  which  are  at  home  at  my  house,"  but  "  those  who  belong  to  my 
house."  Eis  often  signifies  toith  respect  to,  or  in  reference  to.  The 
preposition  here  has  no  respect  to  place  at  all.  The  whole  relations 
are  here  included,  in  whatever  houses  they  might  dwell.  At  all  events, 
it  was  not  at  but  in  the  house  they  lived.  At  can  have  no  pretensions 
here. 

The  second  example  is  Luke  xxi.  37.  "  He  lodged  at  the  hill."  At 
the  hill  ?  Was  it  not  within  the  verge  of  what  is  called  the  mount  of 
Olives?  At,  then,  has  no  business  here.  But  the  preposition  has  here 
its  own  peculiar  meaning,  and  implies  motion  as  well  as  in  other  places. 
The  writer  has  been  looking  into  Matthiae ;  why  has  he  not  attended  to 
him  on  this  point?  He  explains  this  syntax  not  only  as  implying 
motion  in  the  preposition,  but  as  being  communicated  by  the  preposition 
to  verbs  which  do  not  in  their  own  nature  import  motion.  He  illus- 
trates by  many  examples.  His  doctrine  is,  "  Various  verbs  which  of 
themselves  do  not  imply  motion,  receive  this  sense  by  the  construction 


300  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

with  eis."  I  agree  with  Matthiae  as  to  the  fact :  I  differ  from  him 
as  to  its  philosophy.  Without  doubt,  in  the  cases  referred  to,  there  is 
motion  in  some  verb  expressed  or  understood,  according  with  the  prepo- 
sition that  indicates  motion.  But  it  is  a  question  whether  the  motion 
in  the  verb,  is  motion  communicated  to  the  verb,  which  in  itself  has  no 
motion,  or  belongs  to  a  verb  understood.  My  doctrine  is,  that  the 
motion  is  implied  in  a  verb  which  is  understood,  and  is  not  properly 
communicated  to  a  verb  that  has  no  motion  in  itself.  It  is  absurd  to 
suppose,  that  the  same  verb  can  designate  both  rest  and  motion.  It  is 
impossible  both  to  stand  and  move  at  the  same  time.     What  I  say  is, 

WHEN  eis  IS  CONSTRUED  WITH  A  VERB  IN  WHICH  THERE  IS  NO  MOTION, 
THERE  IS  ALWAYS  A  VERB  OF  MOTION  UNDERSTOOD,  AND  WHICH  IS  NOT 
EXPRESSED  BECAUSE  IT  IS   NECESSARILY  SUGGESTED. 

But  whatever  is  the  philosophy  of  this  fact,  the  fact  itself  is  unques- 
tionable. In  all  such  cases  eis  has  motion.  It  is  neither  at  nor  in,  but 
into.  Homer  represents  Achilles  as  selling  Priam's  sons  into  Samos; 
"  Agreeing,"  says  Matthias,  with  the  English,  "  to  sell  into  a  place." 
"  The  Midianites  sold  Joseph  into  Egypt."  Here  the  preposition  has  its 
proper  sense,  though  there  is  no  motion  in  the  verb  expressly  joined 
with  it.  This  phraseology  is  exemplified  by  Xenophon.  Cyrus  com- 
manded an  officer  to  "  stand  into  the  front."  Now  there  must  here  be 
motion  before  standing. 

We  ourselves  exemplify  this  every  day.  A  soldier  not  in  straight 
line  is  commanded  to  stand  into  his  rank.  A  ship  is  said  to  stand  into 
land.  When  Cowper  says,  "  Stand  forth,  O  guest,"  both  motion  and  rest 
are  expressed. 

The  writer,  however,  might  have  seen  in  Matthiae  many  instances  in 
which  apo,  ek,  and  eis,  are  translated  by  in. 

Surely  this  might  teach  any  one  that  in  such  cases  the  words  do  not 
change  their  signification.  Could  the  word  out,  for  instance,  assume 
the  meaning  of  in  ?  All  such  cases  are  explicable  on  the  principle,  that 
the  words  retain  their  own  meanings.  This  critical  Mesmerism  would 
stupify  an  angel,  were  he  to  subject  himself  to  its  influence. 

With  respect  to  the  example  in  question,  "  he  lodged  into  the  mount," 
the  solution  is,  "  he  went  into  the  mount  to  lodge ;"  or  in  whatever  other 
way  it  may  be  solved,  the  preposition  eis  implies  that  motion  preceded 
the  rest  expressed  in  lodge. 

The  third  example  is,  "Wash  at  the  pool  of  Siloam ;"  literally,  "wash 
into  the  pool."  He  was  to  go  into  the  pool  that  he  might  wash.  At  has 
no  pretensions  to  demand  entrance  here,  whatever  in  might  allege  for 
itself.  The  blind  man  might  as  well  have  sent  to  the  pool  for  water,  to 
wash  at  home,  as  to  take  the  water  out  of  the  pool  and  wash. 

The  fourth  example  is,  "  She  fell  down  at  his  feet,"  John  xi.  32. 
Literally,  "  She  fell  unto  his  feet."  The  preposition  here  expresses  the 
motion  of  the  fall.  In  reference  to  place  eis  signifies  unto  as  well  as 
into ;  but  motion  in  both.  It  respects  the  motion  of  the  falling  body,  of 
which  his  feet  were  the  point  of  termination.  At  his  feet  is  substantially 
a  very  good  translation,  though  at  is  not  the  meaning  of  the  preposition. 

The  fifth  example  is,  "  to  all  who  are  at  a  distance."     Literally,  all 


REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  301 

unto  a  distance,  that  is,  all  who  are  between  Judea  and  the  supposed 
distance,  meaning  the  most  distant  nations.  The  author  changes  the 
version  in  order  to  bring  in  his  favourite  at.  But  when  he  has  it,  it  does 
him  no  service.  Does  at  a  distance  signify  near  a  distance  ?  Then  they 
who  are  in  the  distance,  and  beyond  the  distance,  are  excluded.  The 
promise  is  not  to  all  who  are  contiguous  to  a  distance,  but  to  all  in  the 
most  distant  places, — all  between  the  speaker  and  the  most  distant  parts 
of  the  earth.     Neither  at  nor  in  would  exactly  suit  here. 

The  sixth  example  is  Acts  xviii.  21,  "  to  keep  the  feast  at  Jerusalem." 
Why  change  in  of  our  translation  into  at  ?  Was  it  not  in  Jerusalem 
that  the  feast  was  kept  ?  Did  Paul  intend  to  stop  at  the  edge  of  the  city? 
Literally,  it  is  neither  in  nor  at.  "  It  is  necessary  for  me  to  keep  the 
feast  into  Jerusalem ;"  that  is,  on  the  principle  above  explained,  "  it  is 
necessary  for  me  to  go  into  Jerusalem  to  keep  the  feast."  The  motion 
necessary  previously  to  the  keeping  of  the  feast,  which  is  not  expressed 
by  any  verb,  is  implied  in  the  motion  of  the  preposition.  This  example 
is  quite  similar  to  those  cited  by  Matthiae. 

The  seventh  example  is,  "  to  die  at  Jerusalem,"  Acts  xxi.  13.  Is  it 
not  in  Jerusalem  that  he  is  supposed  to  be  willing  to  die?  He  did  not 
mean  contiguous  to  the  city.  But  in  all  such  cases  at  is  sufficiently  exact 
as  a  translation.  However,  it  is  neither  at  nor  in,  that  is  expressed — it 
is  into  Jerusalem.  The  motion  from  Paul's  present  position  to  the  sup- 
posed place  of  his  death,  is  not  expressed  by  any  verb,  but  is  necessarily 
implied.  This  circumstance  is  expressed  by  the  preposition.  The  sen- 
timent fully  expressed  is,  "  I  am  willing  to  go  to  Jerusalem  to  be  bound 
or  to  die." 

The  eighth  example  is  Acts  viii.  40,  "  Philip  was  found  at  Azotus." 
This  proceeds  on  the  same  principle.  Philip  was  found  after  he  had 
gone  into  Azotus.  The  preposition  does  not  here  signify  at,  more  than 
in  any  other  place,  though  it  is  sufficiently  exact  for  a  translation.  It 
expresses  the  motion  of  the  verb  that  is  understood. 

The  last  example  alleged  by  the  writer  is,  "  As  thou  hast  borne  wit- 
ness concerning  me  at  Jerusalem,  so  must  thou  bear  witness  also  at 
Rome,"  Acts  xxiii.  11.  Why  does  he  change  the  translation  from  mto 
at  ?  Was  it  not  in  Jerusalem  and  in  Rome,  that  the  testimony  is  sup- 
posed to  be  delivered  ?  Whatever  pretentions  in  might  have  here,  at 
can  have  none.  The  preposition,  however,  has  here  no  regard  to  place, 
but  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  places  mentioned.  To  bear  witness  to  or 
into  Jerusalem  or  Rome,  is  to  bear  witness  to  the  people  of  those  cities. 
"  With  the  verbs  to  say,  to  shoio,"  says  Matthiae,  "  the  reference  or  di- 
rection to  the  persons  to  whom  anything  is  said  or  shown,  is  sometimes 
considered  as  analogous  to  an  actual  motion,  and  this  analogy  expressed 
by  eis."  He  illustrates  by  examples  perfectly  similar  to  the  above,  eis 
pantas  anthropous,  before  or  to  all  men,  &c. 

Reader,  have  I  not  redeemed  my  pledge?  Have  I  not  demonstrated 
that  eis,  in  none  of  the  passages  alleged  by  the  author,  signifies  at  ? 
Have  I  not  shown  the  philosopical  principle  which  accounts  for  the 
peculiarity  of  the  alleged  use  of  eis?  I  have  done  more  than  my  cause 
required.    I  could  have  defended  my  point  and  admitted  exceptions.    I 


302  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE. 

have  proved  that  there  are  no  exceptions.  Mark  i.  5,  then,  itself  decides 
the  controversy.  It  is  into  Jordan  ;  and  nothing  but  into  Jordan  can  it 
be.  Were  there  no  other  objection  to  purify,  this  would  unseat  it.  All 
the  electors  claimed  by  it  have  been  grossly  misrepresented.  They  give 
their  vote  freely  to  the  other  candidate. 

The  writer,  it  will  be  recollected,  translated  en  in  construction  with 
hudati,  by  with  water.  How  does  this  consist  with  en  Iordane,  in  Jor- 
dan ?  The  last  phrase  is  not  sufficiently  tractable  to  be  translated  with, 
and  the  writer  manages  to  convert  it  also,  as  well  as  eis,  into  at.  And, 
indeed,  on  similar  principles,  he  might  convert  into  at,  all  the  prepo- 
sitions in  the  Greek  language,  and  of  any  other  language.  I  appeal  to 
every  candid  scholar, — I  appeal  to  every  sensible  man,  is  not  this  extra- 
vagance? Shall  these  two  prepositions  wickedly  and  feloniously  com- 
bine to  assume  the  meaning  of  other  prepositions,  in  passages  where 
they  are  not  only  capable  of  having  their  own  meaning,  but  where  their 
own  meaning  is  the  most  natural  and  obvious,  for  the  purpose  of  favour- 
ing the  pretensions  of  the  usurper  purification  1 

Nothing  can  be  more  evident  than  that  en  hudati  and  en  Iordane  use 
the  preposition  in  the  same  sense.  Each  of  the  phrases  refers  to  bap- 
tism,— to  the  performance  of  baptism,  while  each  of  the  words  in  regi- 
men designates  that  in  which  the  ordinance  may  be  performed.  Why 
then,  shall  not  the  preposition  have  the  same  meaning  in  both  places  ? 
Is  there  anything  to  prevent  it?  Does  the  verb  refuse  its  sanction ?  On 
the  contrary,  the  common  meaning  of  the  verb  demands  it.  Does  the 
preposition  refuse  to  be  translated  by  the  same  word  in  two  similar 
places?  This  cannot  be.  Does  the  regimen  refuse  to  dip  the  baptized 
person?  No,  surely,  the  Jordan  will  not  exclaim,  "You  cannot  be 
dipped  in  me."  What  then  gainsays  ?  Nothing  but  the  necessities  of 
this  pretender  purification. 

This  is  so  obvious  to  common  sense  that  some  of  our  opponents 
translate  en  Iordane  by  toith  Jordan,  that  is,  with  the  water  of  Jordan. 
Though  this  is  barbarously  figurative,  it  has  more  consistency.  Here, 
however,  we  have  self-evidence  that  both  of  them  are  wrong.  It  is  pal- 
pably evident  that  if  this  writer  did  not  think  that  the  expression  purify 
with  Jordan  is  absurd,  he  would  not  only  have  avoided  giving  a  various 
meaning  to  the  preposition  in  the  two  cases  which  are  so  similar,  but 
would  have  availed  himself  of  a  meaning  which  he  has  judged  so  much 
to  his  purpose.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  evident  that  if  the  per- 
sons referred  to  did  not  consider  that  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  trans- 
late the  preposition  by  the  same  word  in  both  places,  they  would  not 
have  had  recourse  to  the  outlandish  figure,  baptize  with  Jordan.  Each 
of  the  parties,  then,  virtually  gives  its  testimony  against  the  other. 

But  the  author,  it  seems,  has  proof  for  at  as  a  meaning  of  era.  "  Mat- 
thias observes,"  says  he,  "  sometimes  en  is  used  with  names  of  places, 
when  proximity  only  is  implied."  Well,  granting  this  for  a  moment, 
even  in  the  writer's  sense,  does  Matthiae  teach  that  a  controversialist 
may  avail  himself  of  this  resource  as  often  as  his  exigencies  require? 
Grammarians  who  teach  the  above  doctrine,  confine  the  use  of  it  to 
cases  that  will   not  explain    according  to  the  ordinary  meaning  of 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE.  303 

the  words.  I  venture  to  assert  that  there  is  not  an  illustrious  name 
among  grammarians  that  will  sanction  the  use  of  their  doctrine,  that  is 
made  of  it  by  this  writer.  There  is  not  in  Europe,  there  never  was 
in  existence  a  great  scholar  who  would  deny  that  Jesus  Christ  was  im- 
mersed in  Jordan.  Nothing  but  the  confidence  of  ignorance  could  ever 
venture  such  extravagance. 

What  are  the  instances  that  properly  come  under  the  sanction  of  this 
doctrine  of  Matthiae  ?  t  Are  they  not  instances  in  which  it  is  known  that 
the  persons  referred  to,  were  not  actually  in  the  place  named?  What 
countenance  does  this  give  to  the  extravagance  of  our  author  ?  Is  it 
impossible  to  give  the  peculiar  meaning  to  the  preposition  in  this  place? 
Is  it  known  that  the  baptism  could  not  possibly  be  in  the  river  ?  Does 
the  common  meaning  of  the  verb  require  another  meaning  in  the  prepo- 
sition? Does  not  the  common  meaning  of  the  verb,  the  common 
meaning  of  the  preposition,  the  common  meaning  of  the  word  in  regimen, 
all  unite  in  demanding  the  same  thing?  Can  the  doctrine  of  Matthiae, 
then,  be  a  sanction  to  a  process  that  expels  the  common  meaning  of  the 
verb,  the  common  meaning  of  the  preposition,  and  the  common  meaning 
of  the  word  associated  with  them  in  syntax?  The  examples,  however, 
referred  to  by  Matthiae  have  no  need  of  peculiar  solution.  It  is  the 
territory  of  Lacedemon,  and  of  Mantinea,  to  which  Xenophon  refers. 
The  example  from  Euripides  employs  en  with  references  to  Dirce,  not  as 
a  place,  but  as  a  person ;  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  subject. 

Though  in  reference  to  place,  this  preposition  always  asserts  intuspo- 
sition,  without  in  the  smallest  degree  verging  to  the  signification  of  at, 
yet  there  are  situations  in  which  it  is  used  when  intusposition  does  not 
actually  exist.  This,  however,  arises  from  the  latitude  given  to  its 
regimen,  not  assumed  by  itself.  This  peculiarity  I  can  account  for  on 
the  most  philosophical  principles.  In  writing  to  correspondents  at  a 
distance,  I  always  give  my  address,  Tulbermore ;  yet  my  house  is  more 
than  a  mile  out  of  the  village.  Exact  information  as  to  locality  is  not 
designed  or  expected.  Now  this  single  fact  will  explain  a  great  many 
difficulties  conjured  up  by  controversialists  to  give  latitude  to  explana- 
tion. When  I  am  spoken  of  as  residing  in  such  a  place,  in  has  its  own 
meaning  most  exactly.  This  I  have  no  doubt  may  be  exemplified  in  all 
languages.  But  let  a  foreigner,  a  controversialist,  who  knows  our 
language  from  grammars  and  dictionaries,  try  his  philology  on  such  a 
use  of  the  English  preposition  in :  "  Here,"  he  would  say,  with  the 
appearance  of  profound  learning  and  critical  acumen,  "  the  preposition 
in  is  used  for  at,  signifying  not  within,  but  contiguous."  On  this  founda- 
tion he  would  rest  mountains  of  false  interpretation ;  proving  or  dis- 
proving anything,  according  to  exigency. 

My  readers  will  now  be  prepared  to  give  an  answer  to  the  following 
assertion :  "  The  statement  that  John  baptized  en  the  Jordan,  and  that 
he  baptized  en  Enon,  shows  that  the  former  no  more  means  within  the 
water  of  the  river,  than  the  latter  within  the  walls  of  the  town.  The 
meaning  in  both  cases  is  merely  that  of  nearness,  and  should  be  trans- 
lated at  the  Jordan,  at  Enon.  In  the  same  manner  en  dexia,  at  the  right 
band." 


304  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

The  ingenious  writer  is  most  happy  in  discovering  secrets.  I  could 
not  pretend  to  take  the  same  information  out  of  this  document.  How 
does  he  know  that  Enon  was  a  town  ?  How  does  he  know  that  it  had 
walls?  If  it  had  walls,  what  makes  it  necessary  that  the  baptizing 
should  have  been  within  the  walls?  Do  not  the  suburbs  without  the 
walls  belong  to  a  town?  How  does  he  know  that  the  baptism  was  not 
performed  within  the  walls  ?  Could  there  not  be  in  a  town  either  much 
water,  or  according  to  him,  many  fountains  ?  I  might  confine  John  to 
the  town,  if  my  case  required  it,  but  my  philology  will  give  him  a  little 
liberty.  I  care  not  whether  Enon  was  a  town  or  a  district.  On  the 
principle  above  explained,  if  it  was  a  town,  he  might  be  said  in  English, 
as  well  as  in  Greek,  to  be  baptizing  in  it,  when  he  was  baptizing  in  the 
district  around  it.  The  extension  of  meaning  is  in  the  regimen,  not  in 
the  preposition.  Should  a  man  from  London  be  baptized  by  me,  he 
might  say  on  his  return,  "  I  was  baptized  in  Tulbermore ;"  when  he  was 
baptized  at  my  house,  or  at  the  river  Magola,  half  a  mile  from  the 
village.  No  Englishman  would  convert  in  here  into  at.  The  design 
of  such  phraseology  is  not  to  give  exact  information  as  to  the  spot,  but 
to  designate  by  a  name  that  will  be  known  to  those  to  whom  he  speaks. 
It  is  on  this  principle  that  we  say,  that  such  a  man  fell  in  Waterloo,  &c. 

In  the  phrase  en  dezia,  the  preposition  in  does  not  signify  at,  but  has 
its  own  meaning, — in  the  right-hand  place.  Indeed,  instead  of  designat- 
ing nearness,  it  may  extend  to  any  distance :  it  indicates  merely,  that 
the  situation  of  the  object  is  in  the  space  to  the  right.  A  bird  appear- 
ing at  any  distance  to  the  right,  is  said  to  be  en  dezia.  Where  it  is 
applied  to  the  closest  juxtaposition,  this  is  not  the  thing  expressed. 

Section  III. — The  Writer's  Second  General  Observation. — 
"  In  all  cases  where  the  word  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,"  says  the 
writer,  "  it  is  applied  to  things  connected  with  religion,  generally  to  a 
sacred  rite  significant  of  the  purifying  of  the  soul.  Whatever  may  be 
supposed  to  be  the  symbolical  meaning  of  Christian  baptism,  that  of  the 
Jews,  to  which  reference  is  made  in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  that  of 
the  Pharisees,  and  that  of  John,  were  unquestioned  rites  of  purification  : 
this  was  the  meaning  of  them  all,  and  their  only  meaning.  Now  the 
meaning  of  a  rite  being  of  more  importance  than  the  mode,  would  be 
more  frequently  referred  to  when  the  rite  was  mentioned." 

There  is  here  some  truth,  but  false  conclusions  are  drawn  from  it. 
It  is  true  that  Christian  immersion,  and  Jewish  immersions,  and,  he 
might  have  added,  heathen  religious  immersions,  are  all  emblematical 
of  purification,  or  supposed  to  be  effective  of  it.  But  does  this  imply 
that  the  word  by  which  these  purifications  were  designated  must  signify 
purification  ?  This  is  grossly  unfounded.  Was  not  circumcision  a  rite 
of  purification?  Did  the  name  designate  purification?  How  often 
must  I  ask  this  question?  Rites  of  purification  may  have  names 
that  do  not  express  purification.  What  does  the  writer  mean  by 
the  meaning  of  a  rite  being  more  frequently  referred  to  than  its  mode, 
when  the  rite  is  mentioned  ?  Can  this  say  anything  with  respect  to 
its  name  ?    And  is  not  its  mode  an  essential  part  of  the  meaning  of 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE.  305 

the  rite?  If  a  rite  has  a  name  from  mode,  can  it  be  spoken  of  as  to  its 
meaning,  without  indication  of  mode  1 

"  If,  therefore,"  he  continues,  "  a  term  at  first  descriptive  of  mode  was 
employed,  it  might  be  expected  that  it  would,  as  an  appellative  for  the 
rite,  sometimes  lose  its  reference  to  the  manner  of  action,  and  denote 
merely  the  end." 

1.  This  observation  is  founded  on  an  admission  that  destroys  the 
writer's  theory ;  it  admits  that  the  disputed  word  was  at  first  applied  to 
the  ordinance  in  its  modal  meaning.  But  the  author's  theory  is,  that 
the  word  had,  in  Hebriastic  use,  dropped  that  meaning,  and  assumed 
that  of  purification. 

2.  This  admits  all  we  want.  If  baptizo  was  employed  to  designate 
this  ordinance  at  first,  in  its  modal  meaning,  in  that  meaning  it  must  be 
for  ever  understood  as  to  the  ordinance. 

3.  That  a  modal  word,  given  as  the  designation  of  an  ordinance,  will 
apply  to  the  rite  with  respect  to  every  thing  asserted  of  it,  is  the  very 
thing  which  we  teach.  That  many  things  may  be  contained  in  its 
nature,  or  import,  which  are  not  pointed  out  by  the  mode,  we  not  only 
admit,  but  contend.  The  ordinance  of  baptism  is  an  emblem  of  cleans- 
ing, but  this  emblem  is  in  the  water,  not  in  the  mode ;  the  mode  is  an 
emblem  of  death,  burial,  and  resurrection ;  but  whether  the  ordinance 
is  called  immersion,  or  purification,  or  sprinkling,  every  thing  spoken 
about  it  may  be  referred  to  it  under  its  peculiar  name.  This  is  manifestly 
the  case  with  respect  to  the  word  circumcision ;  every  thing  said  about  it 
in  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament,  is  applied  to  it  under  the  name, 
when  there  is  no  reference  to  cutting  around. 

4.  But  when  this  is  the  case,  the  word  does  not  lose  its  reference  to 
manner  of  action,  and  does  not  "  denote  merely  the  end ;"  it  still  retains 
its  modal  meaning.  Whatever  may  be  said  about  circumcision,  the 
word  still  has  the  same  signification. 

5.  Even  when  the  meaning  of  a  word  is  not  understood,  and  it  is 
known  only  as  the  name  of  a  rite,  it  is  not  correct  to  say  that  it  there 
denotes  only  the  end.  It  does  not  denote  the  end  at  all ;  it  denotes  the 
rite  itself,  without  reference  either  to  mode  or  end.  Thus,  with  respect 
to  the  word  baptism ;  this  is  an  English  word,  used  merely  as  the  name 
of  an  ordinance,  without  reference  either  to  end  or  mode. 

6.  To  suppose  that  a  word  assigned  as  the  name  of  a  Divine  ordinance, 
from  the  mode  of  that  ordinance,  as  emblematical  of  something  in  its 
nature,  would  be  changed  in  its  meaning  in  Scripture,  so  as  to  lose  its 
reference  to  mode,  denoting  merely  its  end,  is  as  absurd  as  it  is  impious. 
After  ages  might  change  the  meaning  of  the  name  of  the  ordinance ;  but 
such  a  change  could  not  take  place  in  its  Scripture  use. 

7.  The  principle  of  appropriation  is  entirely  different  in  its  nature  from 
that  which  the  writer  supposes  to  operate  in  the  meaning  of  this  word. 
When  words  are  appropriated,  they  receive  a  peculiar  application,  but 
do  not  lose  their  former  meaning.  It  is  on  the  ground  of  that  meaning 
that  they  are  appropriated.  Along  with  their  own  meaning,  appropria- 
tion supplies  by  ellipsis  that  which  is  necessarily  understood.  Had 
sprinkling  or  pouring,  for  an  emblematical  purpose,  been  the  mode  of 

39 


306  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

this  ordinance,  the  name  might  have  been  sprinkling  or  perfusion ;  and 
these  terms  would  have  been  appropriated  so  as  to  designate  the 
ordinance,  without  expressing  either  water  or  end.  These  would  be 
elliptically  supplied;  but  the  word  would  retain  its  modal  meaning. 
Things  relative  to  its  end,  or  relative  to  it  in  any  view,  may  be  referred 
to  it  under  its  appropriate  name ;  but  appropriation  and  change  from 
progressive  use,  are  as  different  as  any  two  principles  that  operate  in 
language. 

8.  The  writer  adds,  "  Words  always  change  in  their  meaning  with 
modes  of  thought."  This  is  an  impious  remark  in  regard  to  the  mean- 
ing of  words  in  Scripture.  Do  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  change 
the  meaning  of  this  word,  in  reference  to  the  same  ordinance?  Change 
of  modes  of  thought  may  operate  in  changing  the  meaning  of  words  in 
different  ages ;  but  what  relation  has  this  to  the  use  of  words  by  the 
inspired  writers  of  one  period  ?  Let  it  be  observed  that  the  question  is 
not  about  the  change  of  the  meaning  of  the  word,  after  the  times  of  the 
apostles,  but  respects  its  meaning  in  the  New  Testament.  Now,  in 
this  point  of  view,  can  anything  be  more  absurd  than,  for  a  purpose 
of  establishing  a  different  meaning,  to  appeal  to  change  in  modes  of 
thought? 

The  writer  alleges  that  the  words  rantismos,  sprinkling,  circumcision, 
and  anointing,  underwent  his  process.  It  is  not  so.  Sprinkling  is 
applied  to  the  mind  only  figuratively ;  circumcision  is  an  appropriated 
word ;  and  anointing  is  not  a  word  of  mode  at  all. 

"  It  will  scarcely  be  pretended,"  says  the  writer,  "  that  the  words,  the 
Messias  and  the  Christ,  retained,  in  the  common  usage  of  the  Jews,  any 
reference  to  the  pouring  out  of  oil."  That  it  had  reference  to  pouring  is 
not  pretended,  for  there  is  nothing  of  pouring  in  the  word ;  but  that  the 
name  had  always  a  reference  to  anointing,  is  most  confidently  asserted. 
That  the  word  Christ  does  not  suggest  this  to  us  is,  because  in  its 
original  sense  it  is  not  an  English  word.  The  anointed  would  always 
refer  to  anointing. 

But  the  writer  supposes,  that  according  to  our  view,  we  must  hold 
that  the  exhortation  to  the  Jews,  to  circumcise  their  hearts,  directed  them 
to  make  circular  incisions  on  that  organ,  or  to  do  something  similar  to 
that  with  their  minds.  It  is  painful  to  be  obliged  to  spend  time  in 
noticing  such  reasoning.  Is  not  this  a  figurative  expression  ?  To  the 
heart  it  does  not  apply  literally ;  but  the  word  circumcision,  whether 
used  literally  or  figuratively,  has  always  the  same  meaning.  "  Crucified 
with  Christ,"  refers  to  crucifixion  as  really  as  when  applied  to  the  death 
of  Christ. 

The  Jewish  rite  had  the  name  circumcision,  not  from  process  or  change 
of  modes  of  thought,  but  by  appropriation ;  and  every  thing  that  was 
ever  included  in  it  in  the  Scriptures,  was  in  it  from  the  first  moment  of 
its  appropriation.  A  better  example  could  not  be  chosen  to  illustrate 
our  doctrine.  This  rite,  according  to  the  writer  himself,  received  a 
modal  meaning  :  purification,  he  says,  is  its  meaning ;  yet  the  word  first 
and  last  has  its  modal  meaning,  and  does  not  designate  purification. 
When  it  is  said  that  the  sword  of  the  Lord  is  bathed  in  heaven,  must 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  307 

we  either  admit  a  change  in  the  meaning  of  the  word  bathe,  or  hold  that 
there  is  in  heaven  a  literal  bathing  of  a  sword  ? 

"  The  common  tendency  to  use,"  says  the  writer,  "  in  speaking  of 
sacred  things,  words  significant  of  their  design,  rather  than  of  their 
mode,  appears  in  our  own  language.  The  terms  christen,  commune, 
ordain,  consecrate,  worship,  are  of  such  a  nature  that  neither  their 
etymology,  nor  their  ordinary  signification,  would  give  the  least  clue 
to  the  manner  in  which  the  service  thus  named  was  performed."  Now 
what  trifling  is  this !  What  bearing  can  it  have  on  the  question  at 
issue  ?  Does  this  show,  that  in  giving  a  name  to  an  ordinance,  with 
a  view  to  designate  something  in  its  meaning,  a  word  of  mode  might 
not  be  employed  by  its  author?  Does  this  show  that  Christ  did  not 
appoint  an  ordinance  emblematical  in  its  mode  ?  Shall  every  man 
be  allowed  to  give  names  to  his  inventions,  and  shall  not  Christ  be 
allowed  to  give  names  to  his  ordinances,  and  give  such  modes  to  his 
ordinances,  as  he  pleases  ?  Must  we  confine  him  to  the  common  ten- 
dencies of  human  nature  on  such  occasions?  We  do  not  argue  from 
antecedent  probability,  that  a  word  of  mode  must  be  appropriated  to 
this  ordinance :  we  do  not  argue  that  an  ordinance  must  have  a  modal 
meaning.  We  do  not  argue  from  the  nature  of  things,  that  a  word 
indicative  of  end  would  have  been  improper.  We  argue  that  it  is  a 
matter  of  fact  that  the  icord  employed  is  a  word  of  mode ;  that  the  syntax 
of  the  word  indicates  the  same  thing ;  and  that  the  Scripture  explanation  of 
the  ordinance  declares  that  its  mode  is  emblematical.  Does  it  follow,  that 
because  certain  words,  neither  in  their  etymology  nor  ordinary  signifi- 
cation, give  any  intimation  with  respect  to  the  manner  in  which  the 
service  thus  named  was  performed,  no  indication  of  this  can  be  given  in 
an  ordinance  of  Christ?  How  could  we  expect  indication  of  manner 
in  words  which  have  nothing  of  manner  in  their  literal  meaning  ? 
Because  christen  gives  no  clue  to  its  mode,  since  there  is  no  mode  in  its 
origin ;  shall  baptizo,  which  the  author  himself  in  this  connexion  admits 
to  be  given  to  the  ordinance  at  first  in  its  modal  sense,  and  changed 
only  by  change  in  modes  of  thought,  give  no  clue  in  its  etymology  or 
ordinary  signification,  to  the  manner  in  which  baptism  is  to  be  per- 
formed ? 

Some  of  the  words  referred  to  by  the  author,  do  indeed  indicate  the 
tendency  of  the  human  mind  both  to  change  the  ordinances  of  Christ, 
and  give  them  new  names.  Christen,  to  make  a  Christian,  is  a  very 
happy  Puseyite  name  for  a  Puseyite  rite.  But  we  cannot  forget  that 
Paul,  when  the  Lord's  Supper  was  abused,  would  not  give  it  the  Scripture 
name. 

But  the  fact  of  giving  names  to  ordinances  from  modes  or  circum- 
stances is  not  singular.  Does  the  writer  forget  that  breaking  of  bread  is 
among  the  inspired  designations  of  the  Lord's  supper  ?  Is  not  laying 
on  of  hands  a  similar  expression?  What  about  the  name  of  the  rite  of 
circumcision  ? 

"  The  designation  of  the  Lord's  supper  is  retained  by  us,"  says  the 
writer,  "  though  that  ordinance  is  no  longer  observed  as  a  meal." 

No  longer  observed  as  a  meal !  !  !     Was  it  ever  observed  as  a  meal  ? 


308  REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL  MAGAZINE. 

Was  it  a  meal  in  its  institution  ?  Was  it  not  instituted  immediately 
after  a  meal  ?  That  it  never  should  be  a  meal,  are  we  not  taught  in 
the  indignant  question,  "  Have  ye  not  houses  to  eat  and  to  drink  in  ?" 
It  is  called  a  supper  from  the  time  of  its  institution,  and  this  circum- 
stance is  still  imported  in  the  name,  as  much  as  on  the  evening  when  it 
was  appointed.  To  retain  it  is  not  optional — to  change  it  is  an  invasion 
of  the  prerogative  of  the  Son  of  God.  The  ordinance  has  in  Scripture 
other  names ;  but  to  give  it  the  name  of  sacrament  or  eucharist  is  as 
unwarrantable  as  to  change  the  name  assigned  by  her  Majesty  to  the 
Prince  of  Wales.  The  name  of  the  ordinance  has  no  respect  to  the  time 
at  which  we  observe  it,  but  to  the  time  at  which  it  was  instituted. 
There  is  neither  a  change  in  the  term,  nor  in  the  meaning  of  the  term. 
Supper  does  not  now  mean  breakfast  or  dinner :  the  tendency  in  the 
human  mind  to  change  the  meaning  of  words,  can  have  no  bearing  on 
this  question.  The  inquiry  is  not  whether  certain  words  afterwards 
changed  their  meaning ;  but  what  is  their  meaning  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ?     This  must  still  be  their  meaning  to  us. 

"  And  in  many  countries,"  says  the  writer,  "where  terms  expressive 
of  dipping  were  first  used  for  baptism,  because  it  was  thus  administered, 
the  same  terms  continue  to  be  used  when  the  mode  is  no  longer  in 
accordance  with  their  primary  signification." 

Whatever  may  be  the  case  with  respect  to  the  fact  here  referred  to, 
the  principle  I  have  not  only  always  admitted,  but  from  the  beginning 
I  have  pointed  it  out.  But  my  opponents  make  a  very  unjustifiable  use 
of  it.  Because  a  word  designating  mode,  appropriated  to  an  ordinance 
of  Christ,  will  continue  to  be  applied  to  the  ordinance,  even  when  the 
mode  is  changed,  does  it  follow  that  in  the  New  Testament  either  the 
mode  or  the  meaning  of  its  name  will  be  changed?  Changes  of  mode 
and  meaning  of  name  in  the  usage  of  ages,  have  nothing  to  do  with  this 
question.  Had  the  mode  been  universally  changed  even  in  the  second 
century,  it  would  not  disturb  my  philology.  Whatever  change  men  may 
make  in  this  ordinance,  its  name,  its  mode,  and  its  nature,  must  remain 
the  same  in  Scripture  for  ever.  What  has  the  meaning  of  the  word  in 
Scripture,  to  do  with  after-changes  in  its  meaning  ?  According  to  this 
writer,  every  change  in  the  meaning  of  Scripture  words  made  by  after 
ages,  must  produce  a  similar  change  on  the  meaning  of  Scripture  itself. 
On  this  principle,  language  would  be  incapable  of  conveying  a  revelation. 

But  does  not  the  writer  see  that  this  admits  all  we  want?  If  many 
countries  employed  to  designate  this  ordinance,  terms  expressive  of 
dipping,  because  it  was  thus  administered,  and  afterwards,  changing  the 
mode,  continued  the  name,  does  not  this  imply  that  dipping  was  their 
original  mode?  Now  this  is  all  we  want  with  respect  to  baptizo.  If 
immerse  was  its  meaning  in  its  first  application  to  baptism,  we  care  not 
how  many  changes  may  be  afterwards  made  in  its  meaning. 

In  his  reasoning  in  this  general  observation,  there  are  no  less  than 
four  theories  involved  in  his  arguments,  as  the  ground  of  his  conclusions. 
1.  The  grand  theory  is,  that  this  word,  by  frequency  of  application 
to  purification,  came  at  last  to  designate  purification  without  reference 
to  mode :  that  such  was  its  use  in  the  time  of  John  the  Baptist,  and 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  309 

consequently  that  it  was  so  used  in  the  New  Testament.  2.  A  second 
implied  theory  is,  that  at  first  a  word  of  mode,  it  would  lose  that 
meaning,  adopting  that  of  end.  3.  That  from  the  tendency  of  the 
human  mind  to  give  names  from  end  rather  than  mode,  the  word  when 
first  assigned  to  this  ordinance,  must  have  been  a  word  designating 
end,  not  mode.  4.  That  it  was  dipping  at  first  in  mode,  and  dipping  in 
name ;  but  change  of  mode  made  a  change  in  the  meaning  of  the  name. 
Besides,  the  author  asserts  that  certain  countries  gave  the  ordinance  a 
dipping  name,  from  its  dipping  mode.  Does  not  this  contradict  his 
theory  from  the  tendencies  of  human  nature  to  give  names  from  end 
rather  than  from  mode  ?  Can  anything  more  clearly  indicate  a  desperate 
cause,  than  that  men  of  ingenuity,  employing  the  most  extensive  re- 
search, are  not  able  to  write  a  page  in  defence,  without  plunging  into 
confusion  and  contradiction?  Ah,  my  fellow  Christians!  cease  to  tor- 
ture the  word  of  God.  You  have  taken  in  hand  what  an  angel  could 
not  perform. 

Section  IV. — Author's  Third  General  Observation. — The  third 
general  observation  of  the  writer  is :  "  In  many  passages  the  word  is 
applied  to  the  minds  of  men  ;  their  spirits  are  said  to  be  baptized.  That 
when  thus  used  it  is  employed  properly,  and  not  figuratively,  is  pro- 
bable, from  the  frequency  of  its  occurrence,  and  from  the  simple,  un- 
poetic  character  of  the  style." 

1.  And  does  the  writer  seriously  assert  that  frequency  of  the  occur- 
rence of  a  word,  in  application  to  mind,  makes  it  probable  that  the  word 
is  used  literally,  and  not  figuratively?  Is  this  one  of  the  characteristics 
that  distinguish  between  figured  and  unfigured  diction  ?  Has  any 
rhetorician  ever  alleged  this  as  a  criterion  ?  Could  such  an  observation 
suggest  itself  to  a  philologist  ? 

2.  How  could  it  escape  the  writer,  that  this  frequency  does  not 
respect  the  mind  only  in  one  view  of  it,  but  includes  infinite  variety  ? 
It  includes  every  affection  of  the  mind  in  excess.  A  proper  term  desig- 
nating one  affection  of  the  mind,  cannot  designate  another.  A  word 
used  figuratively,  may  apply  to  all  in  which  likeness  can  be  found. 

3.  Our  term  immerse  may  be  used  figuratively  as  frequently,  and  with 
the  same  variety  of  application.  What  should  we  think  of  a  foreign 
critic,  who,  on  this  ground,  should  allege,  that  in  all  such  occurrences 
the  word  immerse  is  used,  not  figuratively,  but  literally,  and  without  any 
allusion  to  literal  immersion  ? 

4.  Are  not  pour  and  sprinkle  capable  of  the  like  figurative  application  ? 
Pouring  is  used  figuratively  in  Scripture  much  more  frequently  than 
immersion.  It  is  applied  both  with  respect  to  Divine  blessings  and 
judgments.  5.  The  simple,  unpoctic  character  of  the  style  !  Does  not 
the  writer  know  that  the  diction  of  the  Lord  Jesus  abounds  in  figures? 
The  strongest  figures  found  in  language  are  found  in  him.  Mr.  Fuller, 
we  are  told,  after  examining  an  ingot  of  gold  in  the  Bank  of  England, 
said  to  his  friend,  "How  much  better  to  have  this  in  the  hand  than  in  the 
heart!"  Must  we  say,  in  order  to  make  the  diction  of  Mr.  Fuller  simple 
and  unpoetic,  that  the  word  heart  is  to  be  understood  literally,  and  that 


310  REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE. 

the  observation  respected  the  danger  of  having  the  ingot  literally  in  the 
heart  ?  Would  any  child  expound  on  such  a  principle  ?  In  that  view 
Mr.  Fuller  might  as  well  have  referred  to  the  liver  or  to  the  kidneys, 
and  to  a  leaden  bullet.  6.  As  the  writer,  with  frequency  of  occurrence 
with  regard  to  mind,  joins  the  simplicity  and  unpoetic  character  of  the 
style,  he  must,  by  frequency,  mean  frequency  not  as  to  general  use,  but 
in  the  New  Testament.  I  do  not  recollect  any  figurative  application  of 
the  word  in  the  New  Testament,  except  that  with  respect  to  the  baptism 
of  the  Spirit,  and  that  with  respect  to  the  sufferings  of  our  Lord.  Both 
refer  to  body  as  well  as  mind.  The  word  is  indeed  very  frequently,  in 
good  use,  applied  figuratively ;  and  so  must  corresponding  words  in  all 
languages. 

"  If  baptizo,"  says  the  writer,  "  when  applied  first  to  a  body,  meant 
to  dip ;  when  applied  to  mind,  it  must  necessarily  have  a  different  sense." 
This  is  not  philosophically  correct.  Words  do  not  change  their  meaning 
when  used  figuratively.  The  whole  advantage  of  the  figure  depends  on 
the  word's  retaining  its  literal  meaning.  When  Homer  calls  wheat  the 
marroio  of  man,  marrow  does  not  lay  aside  its  own  meaning,  and  become 
another  name  for  wheat.  This  would  destroy  the  figure.  The  figure 
asserts  that  one  thing  is  another,  without  any  alteration  in  the  signi- 
fication of  words.  When  Christ  calls  Herod  a  fox,  he  gives  no  new 
meaning  to  the  word  fox.  The  doctrine  of  rhetoricians  on  this  subject 
is  erroneous  and  absurd.  This  I  have  proved  at  great  length  in  a 
treatise  on  the  Figures  of  Speech,  now  out  of  print,  but  which  may 
shortly  be  re-published.  Indeed,  when  a  metaphorical  application  of  a 
word  becomes  one  of  its  meanings,  then  it  ceases  to  be  a  figure. 

With  respect  to  the  point  in  which  the  likeness  consists,  between  the 
primary  and  secondary  object  in  a  figure,  there  never  can  be  any  ques- 
tion. Every  good  figure  has  its  own  light.  As  the  immersion  of  a  body 
is  the  complete  covering  of  it  in  the  thing  in  which  it  is  immersed,  so 
the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  must  imply  the  sanctification  of  the  believer  in 
mind  and  body.  No  one  needs  to  ask  the  difference  between  a  sprink- 
ling of  learning,  and  an  immersion  in  it.  When  Cowper,  in  his  trans- 
lation of  Homer,  speaks  of  a  hide  drunk  with  oil,  will  any  child  need  an 
explanation  of  his  meaning?  When,  again,  he  speaks  of  being  drunk 
with  joy,  his  meaning  is  equally  intelligible.  Were  the  term  drunk  used 
figuratively  in  respect  to  a  thousand  different  things,  every  instance 
would  explain  itself.  Drunk  ivith  oil  refers  to  the  quantity  absorbed  by 
the  hide — drunk  with  joy  is  excess  of  joy  :  drunk  with  blood  refers  to  the 
quantity  of  blood  shed  by  the  woman  in  the  book  of  Revelation,  and  to 
the  effect  of  it  on  herself.  Why,  then,  should  there  be  any  doubt  as 
to  the  reference  in  the  phrase  immersion  in  the  Spirit  ?  Could  any  man 
really  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  such  expression,  his  case  would  indeed 
be  pitiable.     He  would  have  more  need  of  medicine  than  of  logic. 

Three  effects,  the  writer  tells  us,  have  proposed  themselves  as  candi- 
dates for  this  likeness.  Let  us  for  a  moment  attend  to  this  award  with 
respect  to  their  claims.  The  first  is,  that  of  colouring,  -which  he  dis- 
misses on  the  merits.  "  It  is  enough,"  says  he,  "  to  say  that  this 
signification  is  without  any  support  from  profane  or  sacred  literature." 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  311 

Now  while  I  agree  in  this  award,  I  differ  utterly  with  respect  to  the 
ground  on  which  it  is  rested.  He  treats  a  figurative  application  of  a 
word  as  if  it  were  literal.  He  calls  on  it  to  justify  itself  by  examples. 
A  figurative  application  of  a  word  has  no  need  of  justification  by  similar 
use.  The  first  application  is  the  best ;  and  it  declines  in  value,  every 
time  it  is  used.  It  requires  nothing  to  justify  it  but  likeness  and  agree- 
ableness.  While  a  writer  has  no  right  to  use  a  new  word,  or  an  old  one 
in  a  new  signification,  he  is  perfectly  at  liberty  to  use  any  word  in  a  new 
figurative  application. 

"  In  respect  to  the  second,  which,"  says  the  writer,  "  is  the  classical 
usage  of  the  word,  it  should  be  remarked,  that  when  in  the  classics  the 
mind  is  said  to  be  baptized,  (i.  e.  overwhelmed  or  oppressed,)  never  is 
reference  made  to  an  abundance  of  good,  but  always  and  only  to  an 
abundance  of  evil." 

1.  The  classical  meaning  of  the  word  is  in  no  instance  overwhelm. 

2.  Has  not  the  writer  admitted  immerse  as  one  of  its  meanings? 
Why,  then,  confine  the  figurative  application  to  one  literal  meaning, 
when  the  word  is  admitted  to  have  many  1 

3.  The  word,  neither  in  its  literal  meaning,  nor  its  figurative  applica- 
tion, has  anything  to  do  with  the  nature  of  the  thing  to  which  it  is  ap- 
plied. It  denotes  excess,  and  nothing  but  excess ;  the  nature  of  the 
thing  must  be  known  otherwise.  In  the  word  itself  there  is  no  expres- 
sion of  either  good  or  evil. 

4.  Admitting  that  the  classical  meaning  of  the  word  is  overwhelm,  this 
would  destroy  the  writer's  theory.  How  would  he  contrive  to  get  purify 
out  of  overwhelm  1  Is  it  not  admitted  that  purify  comes  from  immersion, 
by  process  of  usage? 

5.  All  the  instances  of  classical  usage  in  a  figurative  application,  do 
not  confine  this  word  to  evil.  As  to  immersion,  bapto  and  baptizo  are 
the  same ;  and  immersed  in  justice,  a  classical  phrase,  is  not  an  immer- 
sion in  evil. 

6.  The  English  corresponding  word  immerse,  is  figuratively  applied 
to  both  good  and  evil;  and  all  corresponding  words  in  all  languages 
must  be  equally  capable  of  such  an  application.  Homer  speaks  of 
ambrosial  sleep,  which  Cowper  translates,  "  Immersed  in  soft  repose 
ambrosial." 

7.  But  with  respect  to  figurative  application,  I  am  not  bound  to  rest 
on  examples.  On  this  point,  as  I  have  already  intimated,  I  disregard 
the  authority  of  use.  All  I  want  is  likeness,  and  likeness  I  have.  The 
author's  allegation  is  the  very  ground  on  which  Dr.  Wiseman  rests  his 
proof  of  transubstantiation  from  the  words  of  our  Lord.  He  admits  that 
the  words  themselves  are  capable  of  a  figurative  interpretation.  How, 
then,  does  he  deny  the  consequence?  He  denies  that  the  phrase,  cat 
flesh,  is  ever  used  figuratively,  except  as  denoting  destruction ;  and  as 
this  cannot  be  the  meaning  in  our  Lord's  address,  the  words  must  be 
literal.  I  deny  the  critical  dogma  as  firmly  as  I  do  transubstantiation 
itself:  it  is  grounded  on  ignorance  of  philology  ;  it  confounds  the  laws 
of  literal  and  figurative  expression.  The  sanction  of  use  is  necessary  in 
assigning  the  meaning  ofieords ;  but  no  sanction,  except  likeness,  is  ncces- 


312  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

sary  to  justify  its  figurative  application.  Any  word  may  be  figuratively 
used  as  no  man  ever  used  it  before. 

But  even  admitting  that  overwhelm  is  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and 
that  figuratively,  in  classical  usage,  it  always  applied  to  calamity,  the  phi- 
losophy of  the  writer  is  unsound.  The  manner  might  designate  what  is 
in  itself  an  evil,  while  the  ordinance  designated  by  the  word  might  indi- 
cate a  blessing.  Was  not  circumcision,  as  to  the  thing  in  itself,  an  evil? 
Was  it  not  emblematical  of  a  blessing  ?  Is  not  the  serpent  an  animal 
accursed  of  God?  Was  not  the  brazen  serpent  indicative  of  the  greatest 
of  all  blessings?  Were  not  sin  offerings  emblematical  of  a  blessing  ?  Is 
crucifixion  no  evil  ?  Are  not  believers  said  to  be  crucified  with  Christ  1 
Is  such  a  crucifixion  no  blessing?  Sprinkling  with  blood  is  in  itself 
defilement ;  yet  it  is  emblematical  of  a  blessing — even  the  blessing  of 
purification. 

"  Baptism,"  says  the  writer, "  having  been  long  used  by  the  Jews  as  a 
symbol  of  the  purification  of  mind,  would  be  closely  associated  with  mind 
by  this  idea.  It  would,  therefore,  be  most  unnatural  to  speak  of  the  bap- 
tism of  mind,  except  in  the  sense  of  the  purifying  of  mind." 

1.  What  does  he  here  mean  by  baptism?  Does  he  mean  immersion 
in  water  for  a  symbolical  purpose?  If  so,  this  is  all  we  want.  Does  he 
mean  by  baptism  all  the  rights  of  purification  ?  The  word  never  had 
such  an  application.  Does  he  mean  purification  by  the  word  baptism  ? 
This  his  theory  demands.  Then  the  assertion  is,  that  "  Purification, 
having  been  long  used  by  the  Jews  as  a  symbol  of  purification  of  mind, 
would  be  closely  associated  with  mind  by  this  idea." 

2.  Immersion  in  water,  both  among  Jews  and  heathens,  was  always  a 
symbol  of  purification.  Will  men  ever  learn  that  this  does  not  imply  that 
the  word  designates  purification? 

3.  As  all  applications  of  the  word  to  mind  are  figurative,  no  number 
of  applications  having  one  figure,  will  prevent  its  application  to  another 
— even  to  the  very  opposite.  The  emblem  of  purification  is  in  the  pure 
water — not  in  the  mode  of  its  application  ;  defilement  might  equally  be 
referred  to  by  immersion  in  a  defiling  substance.  How  could  the  writer 
overlook  the  fact,  that  the  Septuagint  says,  "  Iniquity  baptizeth  me  1" 
When  iniquity  is  the  baptizer,  purification  cannot  be  the  effect. 

4.  Figurative  baptism  respects  both  body  and  mind.  This  criticism 
is  mere  speculation,  founded  neither  on  principle  nor  on  observation 
of  facts. 

But  is  the  writer  aware  of  the  consequence  resulting  from  his  asser- 
tion, that  the  word  baptism,  in  the  phrase,  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  is  used 
in  its  literal,  not  in  a  figurative  acceptation?  If  the  baptism  in  the 
Spirit  is  a  literal  baptism,  then  must  also  the  baptism  in  fire  be  a  literal 
baptism,  for  the  same  persons  are  to  be  baptized  in  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
fire.  Now,  as  the  writer,  being  a  Protestant,  can  have  no  claim  on 
purgatory,  I  cannot  see  where  he  will  get  the  fire.  "  The  simple,  un- 
poetic  style"  must  forbid  a  figurative  baptism  in  fire,  as  well  as  in  the 
Holy  Spirit.  In  like  manner,  "  salted  with  fire"  must  employ  literal 
salt  and  literal  fire.  Yet,  after  all,  I  cannot  see  how  literal  salt  will  salt 
with  literal  fire.     Ah,  my  brethren,  it  is  at  a  fearful  expense  that  you 


REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  313 

can  resist  this  truth  and  defend  your  error.  You  must  trample  on  all 
the  laws  of  language.  Your  ingenuity  may  devise  innumerable  schemes, 
but  you  will  never  devise  one  that  may  not  be  dispersed  as  gossamer  by 
the  breath  of  the  morning. 

Section  V. — Author's  Exposition  of  the  Word  in  the  Passages 
in  which  it  occurs. — In  his  exposition  of  the  different  passages  in 
which  the  word  occurs,  the  writer  commences  with  2  Kings  v.  14. 
"  Now,"  says  he,  "what  is  it  likely  that  he  did?"  It  is  not  likely,  but 
certain,  that  he  did  what  he  was  commanded.  Likelihood  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  question — it  is  a  matter  of  testimony,  and  testimony  must 
be  expounded  by  the  ascertained  meaning  of  the  words  employed  to 
convey  it.  He  asks  another  question,  "  How  is  his  action  described?" 
Why  it  is  described  as  an  immersion.  Nothing  can  be  plainer.  Then, 
is  the  matter  at  an  end  ?  Not  so  fast ;  stop  a  little,  friend.  "  To  reply 
to  these  questions,  it  is  proper  to  ascertain  what  was  the  washing 
required  by  the  Mosaic  law  in  cases  of  leprosy."  What  has  such  an 
inquiry  to  do  with  an  answer  to  either  of  these  questions?  To  know 
what  the  prophet  commanded,  and  what  Naaman  did  in  obeying,  is  any 
reference  necessary  but  what  is  contained  in  the  record?  This  was 
not  a  Jewish  purification.  What  had  Naaman  to  do  with  the  law  of 
leprosy? — Even  after  he  became  a  believer  in  the  God  of  Israel,  he  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  law  of  Israel.  Much  less,  then,  could  he  have  to 
do  with  that  law,  when  he  was  a  heathen.  The  author  asserts  of  the 
law  of  leprosy,  that  one  part  of  it  was  ceremonial,  the  other  sanative. 
There  was  nothing  sanative  in  it.  The  leper  was  healed  before  the 
purification. 

He  asserts  also  that  the  washing  and  shaving  of  the  leper  were  de- 
signed to  remove  the  danger  of  infection.  Who  told  him  so?  The 
preventive  of  infection  is  spoken  of  in  the  previous  chapter.  Can  any 
Christian  be  at  a  loss  to  know  the  emblem  of  the  washing  of  the  leper? 
"  Such  were  some  of  you,  but  ye  are  washed,"  &c. 

Had  it  been  a  legal  purification  of  a  leper,  it  would  have  been  per- 
formed after  his  cure. 

Had  it  been  a  legal  purification  of  a  leper,  the  whole  ritual,  with 
respect  to  the  cleansing  of  the  leper,  would  have  been  observed.  Here 
the  thing  commanded  was  to  effect  a  cure,  and  nothing  but  washing 
was  commanded. 

The  writer  says,  that  the  command  to  wash  seven  times  is  a  command 
to  sprinkle  seven  times.  A  command  to  wash,  however,  is  very  different 
from  a  command  to  sprinkle.  Seven  bathings  cannot  be  effected  by 
seven  sprinklings. 

This  is  still  more  absurd  in  reference  to  Naaman.  Would  that  Syrian 
understand  a  command  to  wash,  as  importing  Mosaic  sprinklings? 

The  word  louo  signifies  to  bathe,  and  except  when  a  part  is  men- 
tioned, it  refers  to  the  person  in  general.  This  I  have  proved  at  large 
in  my  dissertation  on  the  word  in  reply  to  President  Beecher. 

In  the  law  of  leprosy,  with  respect  to  purification,  there  are  seven 
sprinklings   with  blood,   and  two   washings  with  water.     Our  author 

40 


314  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE. 

thinks  it  more  probable  that  the  word  wash  in  this  command  should 
correspond  to  the  seven  sprinklings  with  blood,  than  to  the  two  bathing9 
in  water !     But  the  command  refers  to  neither. 

"  The  law,"  the  writer  says,  "  did  not  enjoin  dipping;  and  it  is  most 
improbable  that  not  being  enjoined  it  should  be  generally  practised." 
If  the  law  required  bathing,  or  washing  the  body  all  over,  how  is  it 
improbable  that  they  immersed?  But  the  command  of  the  prophet  was 
most  certainly  obeyed  by  clipping,  though  neither  the  command  nor  the 
performance  had  anything  to  do  with  the  law  of  Moses. 

Seven  bathings  of  his  person  were  enjoined  on  Naaman  for  his  cure; 
which  was  performed  by  seven  baptisms.  If,  then,  baptism  is  purifica- 
tion, there  were  seven  purifications  instead  of  one.  The  seven  sprink- 
lings of  blood,  with  two  washings,  constituted  only  one  purification. 

The  author  thinks  it  improbable  that  Naaman  dipped  himself,  and 
gives  four  reasons  : — 

First,  "  He  was  only  required  to  wash;"  this  requirement  was  performed 
by  immersion.  He  bathed,  and  consequently  he  immersed.  Probability 
has  nothing  to  do  in  this  matter ;  we  have  testimony.  That  Naaman  was 
immersed  is  as  certain  as  that  the  word  of  God  speaks  truth. 

The  second  reason  is,  that  "  what  he  was  commanded  to  do  is  repre- 
sented as  a  small  thing."  And  is  it  a  great  thing  to  dip  seven  times  in 
a  river,  in  order  to  be  cured  of  one  of  the  most  loathsome  and  disgusting 
diseases  that  ever  afflicted  the  human  body  ?  If  this  is  a  great  thing, 
what  is  small  ?  He  was  enjoined  to  bathe — can  there  be  any  easier  way 
of  bathing  than  by  dipping? 

The  third  reason  to  make  it  probable  that  Naaman  was  not  dipped, 
is,  that  "  his  temper  of  mind  was  not  that  which  would  lead  him  to  do 
more  than  was  enjoined."  Nor  did  he  more  than  was  enjoined;  a 
dipping  is  not  more  than  a  bathing. 

The  fourth  reason  is,  that  "  his  action  is  stated  to  have  been  in 
accordance  with  the  prophet's  command."  Doubtless ;  and  was  not  his 
clipping  a  fulfilment  of  his  command  to  bathe  ?  Reasons !  Were  there 
ever  four  such  reasons  alleged  for  or  against  anything?  How  easily  are 
our  opponents  satisfied  with  reasons  for  one  side  of  the  question !  On 
.  the  other,  Naaman  himself,  compared  with  them,  was  yielding  in  his 
obstinacy.  If  I  produce  any  such  reasons,  let  them  be  treated  with  the 
scorn  they  merit. 

"  But,"  says  the  writer,  "  whatever  may  have  been  the  mode  in  which 
Naaman  obeyed  the  prophet's  order,  that  his  action  is  not  described  as 
a  clipping,  is  evident  from  these  considerations."  Let  us  hear  the 
author's  considerations.  "  If  so  common  a  signification  was  to  be 
expressed,  bapto,  or  some  common  word  might  be  expected,  and  not  a 
word  whose  rare  occurrence  indicates  that  it  had  already  some  peculiarity 
of  meaning,  like  what  it  is  found  to  have  possessed  afterwards." 

1.  Is  not  this  extravagantly  unreasonable  and  inconsistent?  The 
action  the  writer  has  himself  declared  to  be  not  only  a  religious  rite,  but 
the  Jewish  rite  of  the  purification  of  a  leper,  yet  this  word  is  too  solemn 
to  designate  the  immersion  performed  in  it!  He  demands  the  little 
wicked  word  bapto,  to  express   a   holy  immersion.     Had  bapto  been 


REPLY   TO   THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  315 

actually  used,  I  have  no  more  doubt  than  I  have  that  the  pen  is  in  my 
hand,  that  he  would  have  objected  that  baptizo  was  not  used — the  word 
on  which  the  controversy  principally  rests.  "  We  have  piped  unto  you, 
and  ye  have  not  danced :  we  have  mourned,  and  ye  have  not  lamented." 
We  give  you  bapto,  and  you  require  baptizo :  we  give  you  baptizo,  and 
you  require  bapto.  Can  it  be  expected  that  in  each  passage  we  shall  have 
both  words?  I  cannot,  I  will  not,  suppress  my  indignation  at  such 
unreasonableness.  The  meaning  of  no  word  could  ever  be  settled  with 
certainty,  if  such  reasoning  is  allowable.  Availing  myself  of  like 
liberties,  I  will  undertake  to  show  that  there  is  not  a  word  in  the  Greek 
language  whose  meaning  can  be  ascertained  with  certainty. 

2.  What  does  the  writer  mean  by  so  common  a  signification  1  By  a 
common  signification,  I  understand  a  common  meaning  of  the  word. 
But  if  this  is  a  common  meaning  of  the  word,  why  does  he  object  to  its 
use  on  this  occasion  ?  Does  he  mean  so  common  an  operation  as 
dipping  ?  Why  should  not  the  same  operation  have  the  same  name, 
whether  common  or  infrequent?  Does  he  mean  common  in  contra- 
distinction to  sacred  ?  How  can  he  consistently  call  this  a  common 
dipping? 

3.  If  a  common  word  is  employed  in  the  command,  may  not  a  com- 
mon word  be  employed  with  respect  to  the  performance?  Low  is  a 
common  word,  yet  it  refers  equally  to  things  common  and  sacred.  Why 
may  not  baptizo  do  the  same  ? 

4.  Baptizo  is  not  a  more  sacred  word  than  bapto;  the  latter  is  applied 
to  Jewish  rites  more  frequently  than  the  former.  If  this  gives  holiness, 
it  is  the  holier  of  the  two.  It  is  indeed  a  little  word,  but  it  is  often  as 
full  of  the  odour  of  sanctity  as  Homer's  ox  hide  was  of  "slippery  lard." 
It  applies  to  the  dipping  of  a  flea's  foot,  yet  it  equally  applies  to  the 
Jewish  immersions  for  purification  Whether  either  of  the  words  in 
any  instance  refers  to  sacred  or  common  things,  is  not  known  from  them- 
selves, but  from  connexion  and  appropriation. 

5.  Baptizo  is  applied  to  common  things.  Is  it  not  applied  to  the 
immersion  of  Aristobulus  in  bathing?  It  applies  to  the  dipping  of  a 
person  in  the  sea — to  the  dipping  of  a  man's  hand  in  blood,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  writing — to  the  dipping  of  the  head  of  a  crow,  &c.  &c. 

6.  But  I  resist  the  ground  of  this  criticism.  If  a  word  is  proved  to 
dip  one  object,  it  may  dip  another.  It  might  as  well  be  said  that  though 
the  word  will  apply  to  dipping  in  the  Jordan,  this  does  not  prove  that  it 
will  apply  to  dipping  in  the  Thames ;  or  that  though  a  word  may  be 
used  to  designate  killing  as  to  a  nun,  this  is  no  proof  that  it  will  kill  a 
friar.  Did  I  meet  such  criticism  with  respect  to  the  meaning  of  a  word 
in  the  classics,  I  would  not  give  it  an  answer. 

7.  That  the  Greek  word  signifies  dip,  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  this  is 
the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  original. 

8.  Has  not  the  term  sprinkle  been  used  in  the  church  of  Rome  for 
hundreds  of  years,  in  reference  to  the  performance  of  the  most  solemn 
rites?  Yet  they  can  use  the  same  word  in  reference  to  the  most  common 
things.  It  is  a  most  unfounded  and  ridiculous  conceit,  to  suppose  that 
when  a  word  is  applied  to  solemn  things,  it  is  disqualified  for  service 


316  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

with  respect  to  things  that  are  common  or  trivial.     This  is  philological 
Puseyism. 

The  second  reason  from  which,  according  to  the  writer,  "  It  is  evident" 
that  this  word  cannot  here  signify  dipping,  though  dipping  had  been  the 
action  performed,  is  that  "  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  dipping  was 
in  the  thoughts  of  the  writer ;  for  there  is  no  word  in  the  context,  and 
nothing  in  the  scope  of  the  passage,  having  the  least  relation  thereto. 
On  the  contrary,  while  apart  from  the  signification  of  the  word  itself, 
there  is  nothing  to  lead  to  the  supposition  that  Naaman  was  dipped,  we 
know  that  he  was  cleansed.  The  action,  however  performed,  was  a 
purification." 

1.  Does  the  fact  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  context  to  ascertain  the 
meaning  of  the  word,  make  it  evident  that  it  has  not  such  a  meaning  ? 
This  is  lame  logic.  Evidence  from  context  is  of  the  greatest  importance ; 
but  the  want  of  it  cannot  prove  an  objection — much  less  disprove.  In 
many  instances  context  can  afford  no  evidence,  but  will  be  as  favourable 
to  a  false  meaning  as  to  the  true.  It  is  strange  beyond  measure  that 
the  writer  should  rest  on  such  arguments. 

2.  We  have  evidence  from  context  that  the  word  cannot  mean  purify. 
The  action  prescribed  as  the  means  of  purification  was  performed  by 
seven  baptisms,  or  by  seven  times  performing  the  thing  imported  by 
the  word.  There  was  then  only  one  purification,  by  means  of  seven 
baptisms.  If  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  purify,  then  there  would  be 
seven  purifications. 

3.  This  is  still  more  absurd,  because  the  purification  spoken  of 
was  the  healing  of  the  leper.  Was  he  seven  times  cured  ?  Though  the 
action  performed  was  the  means  of  purification  ;  yet  it  was  neither 
ceremonial  nor  spiritual  purification.  It  was  purification  from  disease. 
Naaman,  though  cleansed  from  his  leprosy,  was  still,  in  the  sense  of  the 
Jewish  law,  equally  impure  as  an  uncircumcised  man.  His  cleansing 
did  not  fit  him  for  the  ordinances  of  Israel.  When  our  Lord  cleansed 
the  lepers,  it  was  healing  that  was  meant — not  ceremonial  cleansing ;  as 
all  the  cleansed  lepers  who  were  Jews,  would  afterwards  be  cleansed 
by  the  law  of  Moses.  The  writer  confounds  the  healing  of  disease  with 
legal  purification. 

The  third  reason,  according  to  our  author,  which  makes  it  evident 
that  dipping  is  not  here  expressed  by  the  word,  even  though  dipping 
had  been  the  mode  in  which  Naaman  obeyed  the  prophet's  order,  is, 
"  on  this  occasion  Naaman  became  a  worshipper  of  Jehovah."  What  has 
Naaman's  conversion  to  do  with  the  meaning  of  the  word  1  Just  as 
much  as  with  the  era  of  the  Chinese  empire.  Every  thing  would  have 
been  the  same  had  Naaman  continued  in  his  idolatry.  Even  had  his 
conversion  preceded  his  cure,  he  could  not  have  received  any  Jewish 
ordinance  without  circumcision.  In  this  affair  Naaman  can  be  consi- 
dered in  no  other  light  than  that  of  an  unclean  heathen  and  idolator.  He 
was  not  in  any  point  of  view  entitled  to  any  of  the  legal  purifications  of 
the  law  of  Moses. 

To  turn  away  the  testimony  of  the  original  in  this  passage,  the  writer 
alleges  that  the  Hebrew  word  signifies  to  stain  and  to  moisten,  as  well  as 


REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  317 

to  dip.  Now  granting  this  to  be  a  fact,  how  utterly  unreasonable  is  the 
allegation!  How  can  this  serve  his  purpose  here?!  Did  the  prophet 
command  Naaman  to  stain  himself  seven  times  in  Jordan  ?  Did  he 
command  him  to  moisten?  If  the  command  is  to  bathe,  must  there  not 
be  bathing  in  the  performance  ? 

In  Lev.  iv.  17,  moisten  will  not  serve.  The  blood  was  to  be  sprinkled 
from  the  finger ;  and  to  do  this,  dipping  is  necessary.  The  finger  might 
be  moistened,  when  the  blood  will  not  drop  from  the  moistened  finger. 
"  And  the  priest  shall  dip  his  finger  in  some  of  the  blood,  and  sprinkle  it 
seven  times  before  the  Lord."  Who  would  substitute  moisten  in  this 
place?  So  also  Lev.  xiv.  16,  with  respect  to  the  oil.  A  finger  might 
be  very  moist  with  oil,  when  the  oil  would  not  drop  from  it. 

The  writer  alleges  the  authority  of  the  Syriac  and  the  Vulgate,  which 
render  both  the  word  in  the  command,  and  the  word  expressing  the 
performance,  by  ivash.  In  a  free  translation  this  is  often  done ;  but 
it  is  not  faithful.  The  readers  of  a  translation  ought  to  have  as  far  as 
possible  all  the  distinctions  of  the  original.  But  this  is  no  proof  that  the 
authors  of  such  translations  considered  the  words  as  perfectly  identical. 
Besides,  this  does  not  serve  our  author.  He  makes  the  word  signify 
not  washing,  but  purification  by  seven  sprinklings,  as  the  whole  purify- 
ing process  of  the  law  of  Moses. 

Section  VI. — Author's  Interpretation  of  the  Word  in  the 
Septuagint,  Isaiah  xxi.  4. — In  interpreting  the  word  in  the  Septuagint, 
Isaiah  xxi.  4,  the  author  alleges  that,  according  to  Schleusner,  anomia 
here  has  the  sense  of  terror,  as  well  as  iniquity.  Were  this  the  asser- 
tion of  all  the  lexicographers  in  existence,  it  is  false  and  extravagantly 
foolish.  It  never  signifies  terror,  nor  anything  but  want  of  conformity 
to  law,  or  transgression  of  law.  No  matter  in  what  way  the  Septuagint 
is  to  be  reconciled  with  the  text  of  the  original ;  "  iniquity  immerses 
me,"  is  the  only  allowable  translation. 

With  respect  to  this  passage,  the  writer  says,  "  There  is  no  reference 
to  dipping — nothing  even  to  suggest  the  idea."  Whether  there  is  a 
reference  to  dipping  depends  entirely  on  the  pre-established  meaning  of 
this  word.  If  the  word  literally,  as  it  does,  signify  immerse,  the  figura- 
tive reference  must  be  immersion.  If,  with  respect  to  the  English  ex- 
pression, "  iniquity  immerses  me,"  it  should  be  alleged,  "  there  is  no 
reference  to  dipping — nothing  even  to  suggest  the  idea,"  what  would  be 
our  answer?  Why  it  would  be  :  Every  one  who  knows  anything  of  the 
English  language,  knows  that  immerse  signifies  to  dip.  The  same  say  I, 
with  respect  to  this  allegation.  What  better  reference  can  there  be  to  a 
mode,  than  to  use  the  most  definite  word  that  signifies  that  mode  ? 

"  But  its  common  classic  signification,"  says  the  writer,  "  when  applied 
to  mind,  to  press  down  or  overwhelm,  is  exactly  suited  to  it."  Neither 
overwhelm,  nor  press  down,  is  the  classic  meaning  of  this  word,  nor 
any  meaning  at  all.  But  is  it  not  admitted  that  immerse  is  the  primary 
meaning,  or  at  least  one  of  the  meanings  of  the  word  ?  What  then  dis- 
qualifies it  here,  even  if  terror  is  the  baptizer  ?  Cannot  terror  immerse  as 
easily  as  it  can  press  doion  or  overwhelm  ?     Schleusner's  interpretation  of 


318  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE. 

the  word  anomia,  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo. 
It  was  not  to  accommodate  any  theory  with  respect  to  the  meaning  of 
the  word,  that  induced  Schleusner  to  commit  this  violence  on  the  word 
anomia;  but  a  desire  to  reconcile  the  Septuagint  with  the  original. 
This  lexicographer,  as  well  as  others,  gives  immerse  as  the  classical 
meaning  of  baptizo. 

The  writer  speaks  of  the  word  as  applied  to  mind,  as  if  it  were  applied 
to  mind  literally.  This  is  not  so.  When  applied  to  mind  it  is  always 
figurative.  Besides,  press  down  or  overwhelm  is  figurative,  as  well  as  is 
immerse,  when  applied  to  mind.  Is  the  mind  pressed  down  on,  or 
overwhelmed  literally  ? 

But  why  does  the  writer  bring  the  classical  meaning  of  a  word 
into  Hebraistic  Greek?  He  perceived  this  inconsistency,  and  attempts 
in  a  very  unsatisfactory  manner,  to  account  for  it.  "That  baptizo" 
says  he,  "  though  it  had  in  the  Hebraistic  Greek  another  meaning, 
should  be  once  used  by  a  translator  in  its  ordinary  classic  sense,  is  what 
might  be  expected."  Just  what  might  be  expected!  Why  should  it 
be  expected  to  be  used  in  a  sense  which  to  those  who  made  the  transla- 
tion, and  those  for  whom  it  was  made,  it  would  not  convey  ?  Why 
once,  rather  than  a  million  of  times  ?  If  it  may  once  be  used,  it  may  so 
be  used  any  number  of  times.  This  admission  shows  that  the  word 
never  received  a  Hebraistic  sense.  Even  if  it  had  the  two  meanings, 
might  it  not  be  appropriated  to  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  in  the  sense  of 
immerse  ? 

The  author  comes  next  to  the  case  of  Judith  at  the  fountain  of 
Bethulia.  "  Then  Holofernes  commanded  his  guard  that  they  should 
not  stay  her :  then  she  abode  in  the  camp  three  days,  and  went  out  in 
the  night  into  the  valley  of  Bethulia,  and  washed  herself  in  a  fountain 
of  water  by  the  camp." 

It  is  perfectly  incomprehensible  to  me  how  any  one  can  find  a  diffi- 
culty in  this  instance.  The  most  scrupulous  and  even  romantic  delicacy 
is  provided  for  in  the  retirement  of  the  lady  to  a  fountain  in  a  valley. 
It  is  evident  that  though  in  a  camp,  she  was  in  such  a  part  of  it  as 
afforded  her  the  necessary  seclusion.  Had  she  been  the  wife  of  the 
general,  she  could  not  have  greater  security  for  privacy,  nor  better 
means  of  effecting  it.  I  must  think  that  this  plea  of  delicacy  is  unreason- 
able and  affected.  Had  not  the  ordinance  of  baptism  been  supposed  to 
be  affected  by  this  matter,  I  believe  we  should  never  have  heard  of  a 
complaint  against  the  lady  for  indelicacy.  But  I  care  not,  in  the  least 
degree,  how  any  one  may  decide  as  to  views  of  delicacy  in  this  matter. 
However  indelicate  any  one  may  choose  to  consider  the  conduct  of 
Judith,  the  fact  is  in  proof,  and  I  will  not  suffer  views  of  delicacy  to 
question  it. 

The  writer  gives  us  a  number  of  authorities  for  purification,  by  wash- 
ing of  hands  and  sprinkling  with  water.  What  has  this  to  do  with  the 
question  ?  We  do  not  deny  such  purifications.  Sprinklings  are  purifi- 
cations, but  they  are  not  baptisms. 

He  tells  us,  that  if  we  imagine  that  Judith  was  immersed  in  water, 
we  assume  what  is  highly  improbable.     What  sort  of  reasoning  is  this  T 


REPLY   TO   THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE.  319 

We  neither  imagine  nor  assume  as  to  this  fact ;  we  rest  on  the  testimony 
of  the  word.  It  is  from  the  established  meaning  of  the  word,  not  from 
views  of  independent  probability,  that  we  must  derive  our  knowledge  of 
the  fact.  Even  were  the  fact  improbable  in  itself,  the  testimony  of  the 
word  would  establish  it.  Were  an  English  traveller  to  relate  that  in  a 
certain  city  he  saw  the  people  bathing  in  the  street,  we  must  believe 
either  that  the  persons  referred  to  actually  so  bathed,  or  that  the  narrator 
falsifies.  The  plan  of  this  writer,  however,  would  be  to  explain  the  word 
bathe,  as  signifying  to  sprinkle  a  few  drops  of  water,  on  the  ground  of 
improbability. 

But  it  is  physically  impossible,  he  tells  us,  that  the  fountain  was  suffi- 
ciently deep.  This  shows  that  the  writer  does  not  understand  the  fun- 
damental laws  of  controversy.  Does  not  the  burden  of  proof  lie  on 
him  ?  Is  it  not  the  objector  who  must  prove  ?  I  care  not  if  there  had 
not  been  a  fountain  at  all  in  Bethulia;  she  might  have  been  immersed 
without  it.  If  from  other  places  I  prove  that  immerse  is  the  meaning 
of  the  word,  this  in  every  situation  will  provide  the  water.  We  refuse, 
then,  to  be  gauger  of  the  fountain  of  Bethulia :  let  them  dip  it  who  need 
the  evidence.  But  to  allege  that  it  is  improbable  that  the  fountain  was 
of  sufficient  depth,  is  perfectly  captious.  Do  we  not  know  that  it  is 
still  customary  to  bathe  in  sacred  wells  ?  According  to  the  philosophy 
of  our  author,  when  an  historian  relates  that  an  army  forded  a  river,  we 
cannot  believe  him  till  it  is  proved  by  other  evidence  that  the  river  was 
in  some  part  fordable.  If  it  was  forded,  it  must  be  fordable.  If  Judith 
was  baptized  in  the  fountain  of  Bethulia,  it  must  have  been  deep  enough 
for  immersion. 

Though  I  care  not  whether  it  be  supposed  that  she  was  immersed  in 
the  fountain,  or  in  a  cistern  or  bath  beside  it,  yet  it  is  plain  that  the  his- 
torian understands  that  it  was  in  the  fountain.  The  preposition,  indeed, 
does  not  designate  this,  but  it  is  often  used  when  in  might  have  been 
used.  We  do  the  same  thing — we  speak  of  bathing  at  a  river  or  in  a 
river.  But  that  the  historian  meant  that  she  was  immersed  in  the  fountain 
is  plain,  from  his  speaking  of  her  praying  immediately  on  ascending. 
The  English  translation  also  understands  it  in  this  sense,  for  it  renders 
it,  "  when  she  came  out." 

The  delicacy  of  our  author  is  so  very  romantic,  that  it  is  not  enough 
for  him  that  the  guard  of  Holofernes  were  forbidden  to  hinder  her — he 
complains  that  they  were  not  forbidden  to  watch  her.  He  might  still 
require  security  from  the  Man  in  the  Moon,  for  who  could  say,  but,  like 
peeping  Tom  of  Coventry,  he  might  be  awake  while  all  others  were 
asleep?  Can  there  be  a  greater  instance  of  trifling  than  this?  Could 
the  meaning  of  any  word  ever  be  determined  if  such  a  mode  of  reasoning 
were  admitted? 

"  If  still  it  should  be  asserted,"  says  the  writer,  "  that  she  did  dip  her- 
self, this  will  not  prove  that  to  dip  is  the  sense  of  the  word."  Here  again 
the  writer  mistakes  the  burden  of  proof.  Our  business  is  merely  to 
answer  objections.  But  what  does  he  mean  by  saying  that,  "  if  it  should 
be  asserted  that  she  did  dip  herself,  this  will  not  prove  that  to  dip  is  the 
sense  of  the  word  ?"     Surely  he  does  not  mean  to  say  that  such  an 


320  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

assertion  will  not  prove  the  fact ;  for  no  one  could  allege  that  an  asser 
tion  is  proof.  If  he  has  any  meaning,  it  must  be  that  though  she  were 
dipped,  this  would  not  prove  that  dip  is  the  meaning  of  the  word.  This 
admission,  however,  destroys  his  cause  :  for  what  is  the  ground  on  which 
the  admission  can  rest,  but  on  the  meaning  of  the  word?  If  she  was 
dipped,  this  word  must  have  dipped  her.  It  cannot  be  known  or  ration- 
ally admitted  that  she  was  dipped,  but  on  the  testimony  of  this  word.  To 
admit  that  she  was  dipped,  on  the  evidence  of  the  passage,  is  to  admit 
immerse  to  be  the  meaning  of  baptizo. 

He  tells  us  that,  "  in  whatever  way  it  was  performed,  the  historian 
wished  to  represent  it  as  a  religious  purification,  and  consequently  that 
this  is  the  meaning  of  the  word."  Who  doubts  that  it  was  a  religious 
purification?  What  sort  of  logic  is  it  to  say,  "  consequently  this  is  the 
meaning  of  the  word?"  How  many  times  must  I  prove  that  purifica- 
tion may  be  the  nature  of  a  rite,  while  it  has  not  purification  as  its  name  ? 

The  Syriac  also,  he  tells  us,  agrees  with  this — "  lavabat  se,"  she  bathed 
herself.  As  a  free  translation  I  can  have  no  objection  to  this.  But  it 
is  not  exact.  A  preacher  expounding  the  words  of  Peter,  "  silver  and 
gold  have  I  none,"  remarked  very  profoundly,  that  this  might  be  trans- 
lated gold  and  silver,  or  silver  and  gold.  So  if  the  lady  dipped  herself 
in  the  fountain  of  Bethulia,  she  was  bathed  :  if  she  was  bathed  in  it,  she 
was  dipped ;  but  dip  and  bathe  are  not  therefore  synonymous.  The  pas- 
sage in  Sirach,  xxxi.  25,  is  the  next  that  comes  under  the  consideration 
of  the  writer.  The  English  translation  is  :  "  He  that  washeth  himself 
after  touching  a  dead  body,  if  he  touch  it  again,  what  availeth  his  wash- 
ing?" Literally  it  is,  "  He  that  is  immersed  from  a  dead  body  and  again 
touches  it,  what  avails  his  bath  or  bathing?"  The  writer  says,  "It  is 
impossible  that  baptizomenos  here  means  dipped.  1.  Because  if  there 
were  any  immersion,  it  is  unlikely  that  this  rite  should  be  characterised 
by  a  part  not  named  in  the  law."  Is  a  thing  impossible,  because  it  is 
unlikely  ?  If  immersion  is  not  named  in  the  law,  it  is  implied  in  what 
is  named — bathing.  This  is  the  way  that  the  law  was  fulfilled.  Why, 
then,  may  it  not  be  so  designated  ?  It  is  perfectly  the  same  thing  that 
takes  place  in  the  case  of  Naaman — bathing  was  commanded;  dipping 
fulfilled  the  command.  As  immersion  was  the  completion  of  the  purifi- 
cation after  the  touch  of  a  dead  body,  the  concluding  rite  alone  is  refer- 
red to.  This  supposes  all  the  rest.  But  whatever  may  be  supposed  the 
reason,  the  immersion  only  is  named. 

The  second  reason  alleged  why  the  word  cannot  here  signify  immer- 
sion, is,  "  It  is  construed  with  apo,  which  is  not  suited  to  that  significa- 
tion, for  such  an  expression  as  to  dip  from,  could  not  be  used  in  any 
language."  What  if  I  could  show  him  the  very  expression  ?  "  Dip  it 
in  the  blood,"  Exod.  xii.  22,  and  many  other  places,  is  literally,  dip  it 
from  the  blood.  But  though  the  expression  is  the  same,  it  does  not  pro- 
ceed on  the  same  principle.  Here  to  immerse  from  a  dead  body  is  an 
elliptical  expression,  and  means  to  dip  in  order  to  purify  from  the  touch, 
or  after  the  touch,  of  a  dead  body.  The  thing  was  so  common,  that  all 
persons  at  once  understood  and  could  supply  the  ellipsis.  All  common 
processes  are  usually  expressed  elliptically. 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  321 

A  third  reason  alleged  by  the  author  is :  "  The  question  shows  that 
the  attention  of  the  writer  was  directed,  not  to  the  manner  in  which  a 
rite  might  be  performed,  but  to  its  end.  Without  doubt  purification 
was  the  thing  in  the  mind  of  the  writer ;  but  might  not  this  be  the  case 
though  he  referred  to  it  as  an  immersion?  "A  man  once  dipped,"  says 
the  writer,  "  could  not  be  undipped."  Very  true ;  but  could  not  his 
dipping  become  unavailing,  which  is  the  thing  that  is  said  ?  Even  were 
the  word  purification  used,  it  is  in  this  respect  perfectly  the  same  thing. 
A  man  purified  becomes  defiled  by  touching  a  defiling  object  after  puri- 
fication. 

A  fourth  reason  is,  "  The  correspondence  which  exists  between  eucho- 
menos,  he  who  prays,  in  the  24th  verse ;  baptizomenos ,  in  the  25th  verse  ; 
nesteuon,  he  who  fasts,  in  the  26th,  makes  it  probable  that  as  the  first 
and  the  last  are  religious  terms,  and  are  applied  to  those  who  are  seeking 
the  favour  of  God ;  that  baptizomenos,  also,  has  a  religious  sense,  and  is 
peculiarly  appropriated  to  those  who,  by  ceremonial  purifications,  would 
prepare  themselves  for  the  worship  of  the  Most  Holy." 

Euchomai  is  not  exclusively  a  religious  word  ;  nesteuo  is  not  a  reli- 
gious word ;  and  baptizo,  signifying  immerse,  can  be  as  religious  as  either 
of  them,  without  renouncing  a  tittle  of  its  meaning  or  adopting  anything 
in  addition.  May  not  an  immersion  be  performed  for  a  religious  pur- 
pose, without  making  it  signify  anything  but  immersion  ?  It  is  most 
extravagantly  absurd  to  suppose,  that  if  a  word  is  at  any  time  applied 
to  religious  things,  it  is  thereby  incapacitated  for  serving  generally,  and 
must  become  a  religious  term. 

But  that  baptizomenos  here  means  immersed,  is  demonstratively  evident 
from  the  fact  that  loutron,  bath,  is  given  as  a  corresponding  word.  The 
question  is  not,  what  avails  his  purification  ?  but,  what  avails  his 
bathing  ?  Baptism,  then,  and  bathing,  refer  to  the  same  thing.  They 
are  not  the  same  in  meaning,  but  they  reciprocally  imply  each  other. 
This  determines,  beyond  controversy,  that  the  word  does  not  signify 
purification.  Instead  of  extending  to  all  the  rites  of  Mosaic  purification, 
it  applies  only  to  the  bathing.  Even  were  it  identical  with  bathing,  it 
cannot  designate  purification ;  for  louo  and  bathe  apply  only  to  the  washing 
of  animal  bodies.  To  bathe  from  a  dead  body  requires  the  same  ellipsis 
as  to  immerse  from  a  dead  body.  And  if  it  is  bathing,  it  will  equally 
serve  our  purpose.  A  person  is  buried  in  bathing,  as  well  as  in  immersion. 

What  the  author  says  upon  Mark  vii.  3,  is  mere  conjecture.  The 
meaning  of  the  word  in  this  place  must  be  determined  by  its  meaning 
where  there  is  no  controversy.  In  all  controverted  cases,  let  the  mean- 
ing be  settled  independently  of  them,  and  bring  the  result  to  settle  the 
controversy.  If  the  Rabbins  say,  that  in  the  time  of  our  Lord  there 
was  no  such  custom  as  immersion  on  the  occasions  mentioned,  I  will 
reply,  I  believe  the  evangelist  rather  than  you.  What  do  you  know 
of  the  matter  more  than  others  ?  Have  not  others  had  access  to  all 
the  documents  accessible  to  you?  The  evangelist  declares,  that  on 
certain  occasions  it  was  then  usual  to  baptize  themselves  ;  and  baptize, 
in  all  the  Greek  language,  signifies  nothing  but  immerse.  What  diffi- 
culty is  there  in  this  matter  ? 

41 


322  REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

But  the  writer  tells  us,  "  That  copper  vessels  and  couches  should  be 
immersed  in  water,  is  another  great  improbability ;  with  regard  to  many 
of  the  latter,  it  would  hardly  be  practicable,  with  regard  to  all  it  would 
be  difficult  and  injurious."  A  radical  error  pervades  the  whole  of  this 
writer's  criticism.  He  founds  the  meaning  of  words  on  views  of  proba- 
bility, without  reference  to  their  use  in  the  language.  On  such  a  first 
principle  nothing  could  ever  be  known  from  history.  We  make  the  his- 
torian express  what  we  think  probable,  independently  of  his  testimony; 
and  whatever  may  be  his  testimony,  we  force  it  to  renounce  a  meaning 
that  seems  to  us  improbable.  A  principle  more  absurd,  fanatical,  and 
mischievous  could  not  be  adopted.  We  are  not  left  to  determine  the 
question  by  views  of  probability  or  improbability,  independently  of  the 
testimony  of  the  words  employed  to  convey  the  testimony.  The  question 
must  be  decided  by  the  legitimate  meaning  of  the  language,  whatever 
may  be  the  result.  However  improbable  any  person  may  choose  to  con- 
sider the  matter,  if  it  is  attested  by  suitable  evidence,  it  is  to  be  believed. 
If  the  thing  is  not  true  in  the  legitimate  meaning  of  the  testimony,  the 
reporter  must  be  branded  as  a  falsifier.  His  language  is  not  to  be 
forced  in  order  to  harmonize  with  his  veracity.  Even  profane  history 
commands  our  belief  with  respect  to  many  things  that,  independently  of 
the  testimony,  are  improbable.  But  to  me  there  is  nothing  improbable 
in  anything  here  related.  The  things  said  to  be  baptized  are  all 
capable  of  immersion.  Why  should  we  force  and  falsify  the  word  of  God 
to  save  the  character  of  the  Jews  of  our  Lord's  time  from  the  imputation 
of  gross  superstition  1  It  would  not  disturb  me  in  the  least  if  such  im- 
mersions were  even  injurious,  difficult,  and  disagreeable,  though  not  one 
of  them  is  really  such.  The  words  of  the  Holy  Spirit  must  not  be  tor- 
tured to  make  superstitious  practices  easy  to  the  devotee.  Should  an 
English  traveller  relate  that  he  had  lately  discovered  a  colony  of  Jews 
who  immersed  all  the  things  mentioned  in  Mark  vii.  3,  should  we  say 
either  that  he  is  a  liar,  or  that  by  immerse,  he  means  purify  by  sprink- 
ling? No  truth  could  stand  on  such  a  ground  of  interpretation.  Give 
it  to  the  Socinian,  and  he  will  overturn  orthodoxy  without  any  trouble. 
Were  I  to  make  a  selection  of  the  false  principles  of  interpretation  em- 
ployed by  our  opponents,  admitting  their  validity,  I  would  undertake  to 
prove  or  disprove  anything. 

In  a  note  the  writer  edifies  us  with  an  account  of  the  different  ways 
in  which  the  Jews  washed  their  hands  :  he  might  as  well  inform  us  of 
the  way  in  which  they  ate  their  breakfast.  The  question  is  not  about 
purification  in  general,  nor  about  the  way  in  which  the  Jews  washed 
their  hands,  but  about  something  that  was  done  under  the  name  of 
baptism. 

"  That  it  was  not  the  writer's  design,"  says  the  author,  "  to  speak  of 
these  baptisms  as  immersions,  appears  also  from  the  train  of  thought 
which  the  passage  exhibits.  He  wished  to  explain  the  reason  why  the 
disciples  of  Jesus  were  censured  for  not  washing  their  hands.  It  was 
not  likely  that  for  this  end  he  would  refer  to  the  practice  of  dipping  the 
whole  body,  even  if  it  were  customary ;  but  it  is  likely  that  he  would 
refer  to  purifications  similar  to  what  they  had  neglected." 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  323 

Now,  what  is  the  use  of  such  airy  speculation?  The  evangelist 
wished  to  do  whatever  he  did ;  and  what  he  did  can  be  known  only 
from  what  he  has  said.  Why  should  he  be  confined  to  the  instance  of 
superstition  respecting  washing  the  hands  ?  Why  should  he  not  pro- 
ceed to  give  instances  of  more  extravagant  superstition  ? 

He  tells  us  that  the  water-pots,  John  ii.  6,  will  not  serve  us.  I  care 
not  that  those  pots  would  not  hold  as  much  as  an  egg-shell ;  we  have  no 
need  of  them.  We  care  not  where  water  was  found ;  superstition  will 
be  at  no  loss  to  procure  it. 

The  most  illiterate  person  may  perceive  the  absurdity  of  translating 
the  word  by  purify  in  this  place.  What  nonsense  would  it  be  to  say, 
"  They  eat  not  unless  they  wash  their  hands ;  and  coming  from  market, 
they  eat  not  unless  they  are  purified  !"  Is  not  the  washing  of  the  hands 
a  purification  ? 

"  How  this  purification  was  performed,"  he  says,  "  is  not  expressed  ; 
probably  by  washing  and  sprinkling  combined."  And  are  we  to  take 
his  dreams,  rather  than  the  testimony  of  the  word  itself?  Another 
person  may  as  warrantably  allege,  that  the  ceremony  was  performed  with 
holy  oil,  salt,  &c.  It  is  to  me  unspeakably  astonishing  that  Christians 
will  permit  themselves  to  sport  so  wantonly  with  the  word  of  the  living 
God.  Expositions  of  Homer  on  this  ground  would  be  of  no  use  in 
ascertaining  the  customs  referred  to  by  him.  Conjecture  and  probabili- 
ties have  no  just  authority  in  history  either  sacred  or  profane.  To 
attempt  to  ascertain  a  custom  by  conjecture,  is  not  only  to  communicate 
no  knowledge,  but  to  deceive  the  unwary,  who  sometimes  feed  vora- 
ciously on  the  husks  of  conjecture. 

But  purify  is  not  entitled  to  compete  here,  or  anywhere  else,  as  a 
meaning  of  this  word.  It  is  like  a  person  proposing  himself  as  a 
candidate  for  a  seat  in  parliament,  who  is  not  qualified  by  possessing 
the  landed  income  required  by  law.  It  nowhere  can  be  shown  to  be 
the  meaning  of  the  word ;  if  not,  why  should  it  be  a  competitor 
as  the  meaning  in  a  disputed  passage  ?  It  is  in  proof  that  the  word 
signifies  immerse ;  no  meaning  can  compete  with  this  that  is  not  also 
in  proof.  He  who  will  not  admit  such  laws  of  interpretation,  cannot 
be  worthy  of  being  reasoned  with.  He  refuses  to  admit  self-evident 
truth. 

"  The  next  passage  for  consideration,"  he  tells  us,  "  is  Luke  xi.  37." 
He  tells  us  "  that  nothing  is  said  of  the  retirement  of  the  host,  or  of  any 
invitation  given  by  him  to  his  guests,  to  retire  to  the  bath."  No  such 
information  is  necessary.  It  is  evident  that  there  must  have  been 
means  of  performing  the  thing  meant  by  the  word ;  but  whether  these 
were  in  the  Pharisee's  house,  or  elsewhere,  is  of  no  consequence.  The 
Pharisee  was  with  Jesus  in  the  multitude,  and  accompanied  him  to  his 
house.  Whether,  then,  the  bath  was  in  his  house,  or  elsewhere,  he 
must  have  known  that  Jesus  did  not  use  it.  A  thousand  means  of 
immersion  might  have  existed,  of  which  we  can  know  nothing ;  and 
common  sense  should  teach  the  most  ignorant  that  such  information  is 
not  necessary.  Is  it  to  be  expected  that  the  whole  conversation  of  the 
host  with  his  guests  is  to  be  recorded  ? 


324  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

How  differently  would  an  antiquarian  reason  from  this  passage ! 
"  Here,"  he  would  say,  "  it  is  palpably  evident  that  bathing  for  reli- 
gious purposes  was  exceedingly  common  among  the  Jews  at  this  period; 
and  that  there  must  have  been  many  baths,  both  public  and  private. 
Most  probably  every  house  had  one  or  more."  How  differently  do  men 
reason,  when  an  ordinance  of  Christ  must  be  made  to  conform  to  the 
practice  of  man ! 

The  writer  tells  us,  that  in  his  reply,  Jesus  did  not  refer  to  immersion, 
but  to  purification.  What  wonder  is  this?  Was  not  the  immersion 
for  the  purpose  of  purification?  Is  it  strange,  then,  that  in  his  reply, 
Jesus  should  refer  to  the  thing,  and  not  to  the  mode  in  which  it  was 
effected  ?  Does  this  imply  that  immersion  was  not  the  mode  of  per- 
forming the  purification? 

"  The  last  passage  referring  to  Jewish  baptisms,"  says  the  writer,  "  is 
Heb.  ix.  9.  During  which  time  offerings  and  sacrifices  are  presented, 
which  are  incapable  of  making  perfect,  in  respect  to  the  conscience,  him 
who  does  service  only  with  things  to  be  eaten  and  to  be  drunk,  and 
with  various  baptisms,  services  of  the  body,  imposed  until  the  season  for 
reformation." 

The  writer  here  translates  for  himself.  If,  then,  I  can  answer  him 
on  the  ground  of  his  own  translation,  the  refutation  must  be  unsuspicious 
and  satisfactory.  Even  this  translation  is  in  perfect  accordance  with 
my  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  word.  It  is  substantially  the  translation 
of  Macknight ;  and  Macknight  even  here  translates  the  word  immersion, 
— "  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  are  offered,  which  cannot,  with  respect  to 
conscience,  make  him  perfect  who  worshippeth  only  with  meats  and 
drinks,  and  divers  immersions."  Even  according  to  this  translation,  the 
service  or  worship  respects  not  only  the  gifts  and  sacrifices  offered  in  the 
tabernacle,  but  every  act  of  service  in  the  whole  law  of  Moses.  It  must 
respect  the  services  performed  in  their  own  houses,  as  well  as  those 
performed  at  the  tabernacle.  The  meaning  is,  that  the  gifts  and  sacri- 
fices offered  in  the  tabernacle  could  not  perfect  persons  whose  worship 
consisted  in  the  things  mentioned,  which  had  no  excellence  in  them- 
selves. No  translation  could  suit  me  better.  The  baptisms,  then,  must 
apply  to  every  rite  performed  by  immersion. 

Should  Professor  Stuart's  view  of  the  connexion  between  the  ninth 
and  tenth  verses  be  preferred,  it  is  equally  suitable  to  my  view  of  the 
meaning  of  this  word.  He  understands  the  meats  and  drinks,  as  exclu- 
sive of  the  gifts  and  sacrifices.  " Meats  and  drinks"  says  he,  " have 
respect  to  that  which  was  clean  and  unclean,  under  the  Jewish  dispen- 
sation ;  and  not,  (as  some  critics  interpret  the  word,)  to  the  meats  and 
drinks  offered  to  the  Lord."  He  makes  the  baptisms  refer  to  the  cere- 
monial ablutions  of  the  Jews.  Doubtless  they  include  every  thing  that 
was  performed  by  immersion. 

"  The  baptisms  here  mentioned,"  says  the  writer,  "  were  a  part  of  the 
service  of  the  tabernacle."  By  this  he  seems  to  assert,  that  all  the  things 
here  referred  to  were  performed  in  the  tabernacle.  There  is  no  foundation 
for  this,  even  in  his  own  translation,  more  than  in  that  of  Professor  Stuart, 
who  as  to  baptism  is  on  the  same  side.    The  two  dispensations  are 


REPLY   TO   THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  325 

contrasted  in  general.  He  might  as  well  confine  it  to  the  tabernacle, 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  temple ;  or  confine  it  to  the  things  done  in  the 
tabernacle,  to  the  exclusion  of  things  done  elsewffere.  The  service  of 
the  worshipper,  or  the  person  who  does  the  service,  must  respect  all 
the  things  included  in  the  law,  which  is  the  rule  of  his  service.  Indeed, 
in  the  thirteenth  verse,  the  cleansing  by  the  rite  of  purification,  with 
the  ashes  of  a  heifer,  which  was  not  done  in  the  tabernacle,  is  expressly 
mentioned. 

"  We  may  learn  what  they  were,"  says  the  writer,  "  by  referring  to  the 
Old  Testament,  Exod.  xxix.  4 :  '  And  Aaron,  and  his  sons,  thou  shalt 
bring  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  and  shalt  wash 
them  with  water.'  Exod.  xxx.  19 :  '  For  Aaron  and  his  sons  shall 
wash  their  hands  and  their  feet  thereat :  when  they  go  into  the  tabernacle 
of  the  congregation,  they  shall  wash  with  water,  that  they  die  not ;  or 
when  they  come  near  to  the  altar  to  minister,  to  burn  offering  made  by 
fire  unto  the  Lord,  so  they  shall  wash  their  hands  and  their  feet,  that 
they  die  not.' "  Now  from  what  source  do  we  learn  that  the  things 
referred  to  in  these  passages  were  baptisms?  They  are  not  here  called 
baptisms.  We  can  therefore  learn  that  they  were  baptisms,  only  from 
our  previous  knowledge  of  the  word,  and  from  the  fact  that  the  thing 
signified  by  the  word,  whatever  that  may  be,  takes  place  in  the  per- 
formance of  the  thing  here  mentioned.  If  then  they  were  not  immer- 
sions, I  would  permit  no  man  to  call  them  baptisms.  I  am,  however, 
quite  willing  that  they  should  be  called  baptisms  :  the  first  as  an  immer- 
sion of  the  whole  body  ;  the  second  as  an  immersion  of  the  hands  and  feet. 

But  I  will  not  extend  this  act  of  grace  to  the  next  examples,  Numb. 
viii.  5  :  "  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Take  the  Levites  from 
among  the  children  of  Israel,  and  cleanse  them;  and  thus  shalt  thou  do 
unto  them  to  cleanse  them  :  sprinkle  clean  water  of  purifying  upon 
them."  Numb.  xix.  20 :  "  But  the  man  that  shall  be  unclean,  and  shall 
not  purify  himself,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  the  congrega- 
tion, because  he  hath  defiled  the  sanctuary  of  the  Lord.  The  water  of 
separation  hath  not  been  sprinkled  upon  him ;  he  is  unclean."  Where 
did  the  writer  learn  that  these  were  baptisms?  Are  they  called  bap- 
tisms here?  Are  they  called  baptisms  anywhere  else?  He  might  as 
well  assert  that  they  were  circumcisions.  They  are  purifications:  but 
all  purifications  are  not  baptisms. 

"  Such,"  says  the  writer,  "  were  the  principal,  if  not  the  only  baptisms 
alluded  to  by  the  apostle."  It  fills  me  with  astonishment  beyond  what  I 
can  express,  that  any  person  could  make  such  an  assertion.  Is  there 
a  man  of  common  sense  in  England  who  in  reading,  or  hearing  these 
passages,  would  understand  them  to  be  called  baptisms?  If  this  passes 
for  proof,  anything  may  be  proved  :  I  call  the  attention  of  the  unlearned 
to  this.  If  our  opponents  can  misrepresent  evidence,  in  a  case  so  pal- 
pable, can  they  be  trusted  in  cases  of  profound  criticism  ?  If  such  things 
are  the  baptisms  referred  to  by  the  apostle,  it  is  not  because  they  are 
called  baptisms  in  the  law  of  Moses,  nor  because  of  any  explanation  in 
this  passage,  but  from  the  meaning  of  the  word  independently  ascertained. 

"  There  is,"  says  the  writer,  "  nothing  to  show  that  one  immersion  of 


326  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL  MAGAZINE. 

the  whole  body  was  ever  required."  If  bathing  was  required,  does  not 
this  imply  immersion?  An  immersion  of  any  part,  and  of  anything,  is 
as  good  in  proof  of  the  meaning  of  the  word,  as  the  immersion  of  the 
whole  body.  Besides,  it  is  not  the  command,  but  the  performance,  that 
is  here  referred  to ;  and  the  case  of  Naaman  shows  us  that  dipping  is 
the  performance  of  a  command  enjoining  bathing.  Justin  Martyr  also 
speaks  of  dipping  in  reference  to  bathing,  as  prescribed  by  the  law  of 
Moses.  But  it  is  quite  enough  for  us,  that  the  law  of  bathing  may  have 
been  fulfilled  by  immersion. 

"  It  is  superfluous  to  remark,"  says  the  writer,  "  that  even  if  there 
had  been  many  immersions,  these  could  not  be  styled  diaphoroi.  The 
dipping  of  various  things  could  not  be  various  dippings."  Why  does 
he  say  so,  when  examples  in  contradiction  occur  every  day  in  every 
language  ?  In  Deut.  xxii.  9,  it  refers  to  different  sorts  of  seed ;  and 
instead  of  implying  a  great  variety  of  difference,  a  single  variety  is 
sufficient.  It  applies  to  two  seeds  that  differ,  as  well  as  to  a  thousand 
sorts.  Do  not  our  opponents  say,  that  John's  baptism,  and  our  Lord's 
baptism,  were  different  baptisms?  They  were  different  in  neither  form 
nor  emblem,  and  the  difference  was  confined  to  two.  This  passage,  then, 
supposed  to  be  so  unequivocally  against  us,  gives  us  no  disturbance. 

Indeed  we  require  no  more  than  the  repetition  of  the  same  act  to 
exemplify  this  difference.  The  word  is  baptismos,  not  baptisma;  and 
the  different  baptisms  might  refer  to  different  acts  of  immersion  of  the 
same  object.  In  2  Mac.  xiv.  21,  the  word  is  applied  to  two  different 
seats  of  the  same  kind.  The  only  difference  here  was  that  Nicanor  and 
Judas,  instead  of  sitting  on  the  same  throne  or  chair  of  state,  when  they 
sat  in  conference,  had  each  a  chair  for  himself,  a  different  seat.  Every 
one  of  my  opponents  has  brought  this  word  against  me  as  if  it  were 
utterly  irreconcilable  with  my  doctrine ;  but  it  is  the  most  harmless 
word  imaginable.  Their  criticisms  are  founded  on  mere  speculation — 
not  on  either  observation  of  the  various  occurrences  of  the  word,  or  in 
its  philosophy. 

"  Baptisms,"  says  the  writer,  "  were  rites  performed  in  the  Jewish 
temple  in  connexion  with  the  worship  of  God.  Immersions  were  never 
performed  in  the  Jewish  temple,"  &c. 

Where  is  it  said  that  all  baptisms  were  confined  to  the  temple  ?  All 
baptisms  were  not  in  the  temple.  Immersions  of  some  things  were  con- 
stantly performed  in  the  Jewish  temple.  "  But  his  inwards  and  his  legs 
shall  he  wash  in  water,  Lev.  i.  9."  Did  not  this  imply  immersion? 
"  He  made  also  ten  bases,  and  put  five  on  the  right  hand,  and  five  on  the 
left,  to  wash  in  them ;  such  things  as  they  offered  for  the  burnt  offering, 
they  washed  in  them ;  but  the  sea  was  for  the  priests  to  wash  in."  Are 
not  these  immersions  ?  Are  not  these  different  immersions  even  in  the 
temple?  But  we  are  not,  as  we  have  already  seen,  confined  to  the 
temple,  even  by  the  author's  own  translation ;  we  have  the  whole  range 
of  Jewish  practice  both  public  and  private. 

But  why  does  the  author  say  that  baptisms  were  rites  in  the  Jewish 
temple  in  connexion  with  the  worship  of  God  ?  Is  not  this  as  inconsist- 
ent with  his  own  doctrine  as  with  mine?     Does  he  not  make  the  cleans* 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  327 

ing  of  a  person  defiled  by  the  touch  of  a  dead  body,  a  baptism  1  Was 
this  performed  in  the  temple  ?  Was  this  in  connexion  with  worship  1 
It  was  a  part  of  the  service  of  God,  but  not  an  immediate  act  of  worship 
— much  less  of  worship  in  the  temple. 

"  The  apostle  states,"  says  he,  "  that  these  baptisms  were  appointed  by 
God."  This  is  not  the  thing  which  the  apostle  states ;  he  states  what 
the  worshipper  did  in  performing  what  the  law  of  God  required.  If 
immersion  fulfilled  the  law,  and  if  immersion  was  the  way  in  which  the 
law  was  usually  fulfilled,  it  is  quite  enough  for  us. 

"  Immersions  of  the  person,"  says  the  writer,  were  not  appointed  by 
God."  Bathings  were  appointed  by  God,  and  bathings  imply  immer- 
sions. But  it  is  enough  if  the  bathings  were  usually  performed  by  im- 
mersion. Besides,  there  is  no  reason  to  confine  these  immersions  to  the 
persons.  It  may  include  every  thing  in  which  there  was  immersion, 
whether  of  persons  or  things.  Indeed  it  is  quite  sufficient  if  we  can 
show  different  immersions  of  anything.  Neither  the  word  nor  the  con- 
nexion restricts. 

"  They  were,"  says  he,  "  purifications  with  water."  Jewish  baptisms 
were  not  all  purifications  with  water.  They  were  in  many  different 
things,  blood — blood  and  water,  fire,  &,c. 

"  Only  in  one  instance  in  the  whole  Mosaic  law,"  says  he,  "  is  there 
a  direction  to  put  the  object  to  be  purified  in  water :  Lev.  xi.  32."  And 
were  this  the  only  one,  it  would  serve  us.  There  were  different  immer- 
sions in  several  different  respects;  and  that  they  were  not  performed  in 
the  temple,  and  were  not  immersions  of  persons,  is  of  no  importance.  It 
is  quite  enough  that  they  were  immersions. 

But  why  does  he  refuse  immersions  in  other  things  ?  Are  not  immer- 
sions in  other  things  equally  worthy  of  the  name?  "Every  thing  that 
may  abide  the  fire,  ye  shall  make  it  go  through  the  fire."  Numb.  xxxi. 
23.  Here  is  a  baptism  in  fire,  and  as  good  a  baptism  as  one  in  water.  It 
is  added,  "  and  all  that  abideth  not  the  fire  shall  go  through  the  water." 
Here  is  a  different  baptism  in  water.  We  are  at  no  loss  to  make  out 
different  baptisms  under  the  law. 

In  every  view  of  this  passage  it  is  in  harmony  with  our  doctrine ;  in 
no  view  of  it  does  it  demand  any  other  meaning  in  the  disputed  word. 
But  let  it  never  be  lost  sight  of,  that  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on  our 
opponents.  We  stand  on  the  defence.  We  do  not  allege  this  passage 
as  proof;  our  duty  is  merely  to  reply  to  objections.  Our  opponents, 
almost  in  every  instance,  overlook  this.  They  think  if  by  new  transla- 
tions, and  suppositions  not  founded  on  the  passage,  they  can  make  the 
passage  suitable  to  their  purposes,  they  succeed.  We  demolish  all  their 
batteries,  the  moment  we  show  that  the  passage  does  not  necessarily 
import  what  they  teach.  There  is  nothing  less  understood  than  the 
burden  of  proof.  Controversialists  usually  bandy  it  from  one  to  another; 
as  if  it  were  a  matter  of  mere  etiquette  It  must  always  depend  on 
self-evidence. 

But  I  can  carry  the  field  with  respect  to  this  passage,  even  if  all  I  have 
said  on  it  were  to  be  given  up.  Admitting  that  the  many  baptisms  must 
include  all  Jewish  washings,  the  word  may  still  have  its  primary  meaning, 


328  REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE. 

in  reference  to  the  Christian  ordinance.  In  excluding  from  this  passage 
ah  purifications  but  such  as  were  done  by  immersion,  I  defend  my  own 
doctrine  with  respect  to  the  word  as  being  univocal.  But  the  doctrine 
of  immersion,  with  respect  to  the  Christian  ordinance,  may  stand  inde- 
pendently of  this. 

Besides,  washing  and  purification  are  very  different.  The  latter  is  a 
generic  word  of  which  the  former  is  a  species.  All  washings  are  purifi- 
cations, but  all  purifications  are  not  washings.  Washing  is  performed 
by  means  of  water ;  purification  may  be  performed  by  means  of  blood, 
fire,  sulphur,  &c. 

Even  on  the  supposition  that  the  word  here  signifies  washing,  and 
that  in  the  ordinance  of  Christian  baptism  it  has  the  same  sense,  if  the 
person  to  be  baptized  must  be  washed,  it  will  be  quite  as  objectionable 
to  our  opponents.  I  think  immersing  a  person  is  the  easiest  way  of 
washing  him. 

One  of  the  most  romantic  exploits  of  this  champion,  is  that  at  the  Red 
Sea.  The  hosts  of  Pharaoh  did  not  attempt  anything  more  fanatically 
daring.  The  baptism  here  is  the  mere  separation  of  the  children  of 
Israel  from  their  enemies  by  means  of  the  cloud  and  the  sea  intervening 
between  them  and  their  enemies.  There  is  neither  dipping  nor  sprink- 
ling, washing  nor  purifying,  in  this  baptism.  But  let  us  hear  himself: 
"  There  is  one  passage,"  says  he,  "  which,  though  it  does  not  refer  to 
rites  of  baptism,  speaks  of  a  baptism  of  the  Jews,  and  may  properly  be 
noticed  here.  'I  am  unwilling  that  you  should  be  ignorant,  brethren, 
that  our  fathers  were  all  under  (the  guidance  of)  the  cloud,  and  all 
passed  through  the  sea,  and  all  were  baptized  for  Moses  by  the  cloud 
and  by  the  sea.'  1  Cor.  x.  1." 

It  is  always  a  suspicious  thing  in  a  controversialist  to  be  obliged  on 
all  occasions  to  translate  for  himself,  and  form  his  version  for  serving  his 
purpose.  The  best  version  may  occasionally  admit  improvement;  but 
if  on  the  subject  of  controversy,  a  party  can  find  nothing  right  in  a 
translation  made  by  those,  as  to  the  point  in  question,  on  the  same  side 
with  himself,  every  impartial  judge  will  receive  his  translations  with  the 
utmost  caution.  In  my  observations  I  shall  advert  to  nothing  but  what 
concerns  the  point  in  hand. 

1.  In  rendering  the  phrase  under  the  cloud,  by  under  the  guidance  of 
the  cloud,  where  does  the  translator  find  the  supplement?  It  is  not  im- 
plied in  the  text ;  it  is  not  warranted  by  any  supposable  ellipsis.  This 
figure  always  grounds  on  the  fact,  that  the  elliptical  matter  will  be 
suggested  by  frequency  of  the  use  of  the  phrase,  so  that  it  cannot  be 
either  wanted  or  mistaken.  If  it  does  not  necessarily  and  obviously 
present  itself,  it  is  essentially  vicious  in  rhetoric,  and  utterly  unworthy 
of  revelation.  I  am  bold  to  assert  that  such  an  ellipsis  as  the  writer 
here  supposes,  does  not  exist  in  our  language.  Under  the  cloud  cannot 
signify  under  the  guidance  of  the  cloud.  There  is  not  a  rhetorician  in 
existence  who  would  warrant  such  a  figure.  This  is  downright  forgery 
— forgery  as  palpable  as  to  add  a  cipher  to  a  one  pound  note,  to  make  it 
ten.  Controversialists  who  are  not  acquainted  with  the  philosophy  of 
figurative  language,  imagine  that  they  may  in  explication  avail  them- 


REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  329 

selves  of  their  service  as  often  as  an  exigency  requires.  This  enables 
ignorance  to  do  miracles.  But  the  operations  of  figurative  diction  are 
as  subject  to  law,  as  are  those  of  words  used  literally. 

2.  The  thing  here  supplied  by  the  authority  of  ellipsis,  is  never  once 
literally  expressed  in  the  Scripture  accounts  of  this  cloud.  It  is  a  strange 
ellipsis  that  supplies  to  a  word  or  phrase  an  idea  never  elsewhere  ex- 
pressed. Now  not  one  of  the  references  to  this  cloud  calls  it  the  guide 
of  the  Israelites,  or  declares  that  the  Israelites  were  under  its  guidance. 
So  far  from  this,  God  is  said  to  lead  them  by  the  cloud.  He  was  in  the 
cloud,  and  was  himself  their  guide  and  leader.  This  was  a  mere  signal. 
It  might  as  well  be  said,  than  an  army  is  under  the  guidance  of  the 
trumpet. 

3.  This  exposition  takes  away  all  emblematical  meaning  from  the 
cloud,  and  considers  it  merely  as  a  signal  by  agreement.  It  might  as 
well  have  been  a  flag  as  a  cloud. 

4.  But  it  is  evident  that  the  cloud  is  here  considered  not  merely 
as  a  signal,  but  as  an  emblem  similar  to  that  of  baptism,  whatever  bap- 
tism is. 

"  The  cloud,"  he  says,  "did  not  cover  them,  so  that  they  might  be  said 
to  be  immersed  in  it."  Can  it  be  more  clearly  said  that  the  cloud 
covered  them  ?  Is  it  not  expressly  said  that  they  were  all  under  the 
cloud,  and  in  the  cloud? 

"  We  are  expressly  told,"  says  he,  "  that  they  were  not  immersed  in 
the  sea."  I  say  we  are  expressly  told  that  they  were  immersed  in  the 
sea — the  apostle  directly  asserts  that  they  were  all  baptized  in  the  sea. 
Where  are  we  told,  either  directly  or  by  implication,  that  they  were  not 
so  immersed?  "  The  sacred  historian,"  adds  the  writer,  "  says  that  the 
Egyptians  were  immersed  and  overwhelmed,  and  that  the  Israelites  were 
not.  'For  the  horse  of  Pharaoh  went  in  with  his  chariots  and  with 
his  horsemen  into  the  sea ;  and  the  Lord  brought  again  the  waters  of  the 
sea  upon  them ;  but  the  children  of  Israel  went  on  dry  land  in  the  midst 
of  the  sea.'  " 

I  have  no  objection  that  the  descent  of  the  Egyptians  into  the  sea  be 
called  an  immersion ;  but  this  immersion  was  to  them  a  dry  dip,  as  well 
as  to  the  Israelites.  When  they  went  in,  the  water  was  removed,  and 
they,  as  well  as  the  Israelites,  at  first  stood  on  dry  ground.  When  the 
water  returned,  they  were  overwhelmed,  which  was  not  the  case  with 
the  Israelites.  Both  armies  are  said  to  go  down  into  the  sea.  On  the 
very  same  principle  that  they  are  said  to  go  into  the  sea,  when  the  place 
where  they  entered  was  dry  land,  they  may  be  said  to  be  immersed  in 
the  sea,  while  the  water  surrounded  them  walking  on  dry  ground. 
The  man  who  asks,  how  could  they  be  immersed  in  the  sea,  when 
the  water  was  removed?  may  ask,  how  could  they  go  into  the  sea,  when 
the  place  where  they  walked  was  dry  ?  No  rational  man  can  need  in- 
formation on  such  a  point.  We  talk  familiarly  of  plunging  into  a  forest, 
and  of  being  immersed  in  a  valley.  The  going  down  into  the  sea  is  the 
immersion — the  overflowing  of  the  waters  was  the  overwhelming  of  the 
Egyptians. 

"  St.  Paul,"  says  the  writer,  "  declares  that  the  Israelites  were  bap- 

42 


330  REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE. 

tized  both  by  the  cloud,  and  by  the  sea ;  but  from  the  history  of  Moses, 
we  learn  that  they  were  neither  dipped,  nor  immersed,  nor  overwhelmed, 
by  either  the  one  or  the  other."  They  were  not  overwhelmed,  and 
they  are  not  said  to  be  overwhelmed.  They  are  said  to  be  baptized, 
and  they  were  immersed  in  the  sea,  as  they  went  down  into  the  sea. 
They  were  immersed  in  the  cloud,  as  they  were  said  both  to  be  under  it, 
and  in  it.  If  on  the  top  of  a  mountain  I  am  suddenly  involved  in 
mist,  shall  any  one  misunderstand  me,  when  I  say  that  I  was  suddenly 
immersed  in  a  cloud  1 

But  how  were  the  Israelites  purified  by  the  cloud,  and  by  the  sea  ? 
Why,  by  being  through  this  means  separated  from  the  Egyptians.  Upon 
this  I  remark,  1.  Separation  is  no  purification  of  any  kind,  either  real  or 
emblematical.  Does  the  author  ever  find  mere  separation  called  purifi- 
cation ?  Was  ever  extravagance  more  extravagant  than  this  ?  I  sup- 
pose he  confounds  purification  with  the  original  idea  in  the  word  that 
signifies  holiness.  But  holiness  and  purification  are  as  distinct  as  sin 
and  duty. 

2.  In  this  view  of  the  matter,  the  things  that  separated,  might  as  well 
have  been  anything  else  as  the  cloud  and  sea.  A  curtain  would  have 
served  as  well  as  a  cloud;  and  a  mountain  as  well  as  the  sea.  The  wall 
of  China  would  purify  as  well  as  the  Red  Sea. 

3.  Even  were  the  passage  translated  purified  by  the  cloud  and  by  the 
sea,  it  would  imply  that  the  purification  was  something  done  by  means  of 
the  cloud,  when  they  were  in  it ;  and  by  the  sea,  when  they  were  passing 
through  it.  The  cloud  and  sea  could  not  have  been  mere  separation  ; 
but  must  have  been  means  of  purification  by  application  to  their  bodies. 
Would  any  reader  understand  purification  by  a  cloud,  as  expressing 
separation  from  something,  by  intervention  of  the  cloud ;  or  purification 
by  the  sea,  as  expressing  separation  from  idolaters,  by  intervention  of  the 
sea?  The  application  of  the  purifying  substance  to  the  thing  purified,  is 
essential  to  purification. 

4.  The  baptism  was  not  by  the  cloud,  and  by  the  sea,  but  in  the  cloud, 
and  in  the  sea.  The  primary  meaning  of  the  preposition,  all  must  allow, 
refers  to  place ;  and  to  employ  a  word  in  a  secondary  meaning,  in  a 
situation  where  the  primary  is  not  only  suitable,  but  where  it  most  obvi- 
ously suggests  itself,  would  be  a  Very  essential  fault  in  style.  The  pre- 
position is  often  to  be  translated  with,  but  in  the  sense  by,  grammarians 
themselves  acknowledge  it  to  be  rare.  Why  then  desert  the  obvious 
meaning  for  one  rare,  and  in  this  place  the  cause  of  obscurity,  or 
rather  of  necessary  misunderstanding? 

Again,  the  preposition  en,  with  the  verbs  in  question,  always,  in  other 
cases,  signifies  in.  Why  another  meaning  on  this  occasion  ?  Must 
all  words  desert  their  usual  meaning,  and  all  phrases  their  syntax, 
to  favour  the  claims  of  this  pretender  purification  ?  Further,  the  con- 
nexion demands  in,  as  the  meaning  of  the  preposition.  In  the  cloud, 
refers  to  under  the  cloud ;  in  the  sea,  to  through  the  sea.  It  must 
then  have  been  when  they  were  under  the  cloud,  that  they  were  baptized 
with  respect  to  the  cloud;  and  while  they  passed  through  the  sea, 
that  they  were  baptized  with  respect  to  the  sea.   For  what  purpose  does 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  331 

the  apostle  so  solemnly  call  their  attention  to  the  fact,  that  their  fathers 
were  under  the  cloud,  and  passed  through  the  sea,  if  their  baptism,  which 
is  connected  with  this,  did  not  take  place  while  they  were  under  the 
cloud,  and  while  they  passed  through  the  sea?  According  to  the  writer, 
the  baptism  of  the  Israelites  by  the  sea,  was  accomplished  after  they 
passed  the  sea ;  according  to  the  apostle,  the  baptism  was  by  passing 
through  the  sea. 

5.  There  is  in  the  passage  a  reference  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism, 
and  something  is  said  to  take  place  in  the  passage  through  the  Red 
Sea,  that  is  called  a  baptism  unto  Moses.  There  must  be,  then,  some 
similarity  between  Christian  baptism,  and  what  took  place  with  respect 
to  the  Israelites.  But  purification  as  a  mere  separation,  without  respect 
to  the  nature  of  the  things  that  purified,  cannot  be  this  baptism.  In  this, 
there  is  no  emblem  at  all.  The  sea  and  the  cloud  are  not  considered  as 
emblematical  :  it  might  as  well  have  been  a  volcano,  or  a  morass. 
There  is  no  baptism  at  all ;  the  sprinkling  of  the  cloud,  and  the  spray 
of  the  sea,  are  less  extravagant  fancies  than  is  this  purify.  Even  though 
this  could  be  called  a  purification,  it  could  not  be  called  baptism,  for 
every  purification  is  not  baptism. 

Immersion  and  nothing  but  immersion  will  suit  this  passage.  Did 
I  choose  to  stand  here  on  the  defensive  merely,  I  might  content  myself 
with  answering  objections.  It  would  be  enough  for  me,  on  that  ground, 
to  show  that  the  common  version  is  warrantable,  even  though  I  should 
admit  that  this  passage  is  capable  of  the  translation  of  my  opponent.  If 
it  is  also  capable  of  mine,  it  cannot  stand  as  an  objection  against  me.  If 
the  word  can  have  its  ordinary  meaning  here,  without  any  force,  it  is  all 
my  case  requires.  But  I  do  not  stand  here,  merely  on  the  defensive ; 
I  found  proof  on  this  passage,  and  maintain  that  no  view  of  the  meaning 
of  the  word  will  suit  this  passage,  but  that  of  our  ve/sion.  On  this 
ground,  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on  me,  and  I  will  sustain  it.  I  refuse 
nothing  to  my  opponent  that  in  my  turn  I  demand  from  him.  Truth  is 
my  only  object,  and  sternly  just  reasoning,  grounded  on  self-evident 
principles,  is  my  only  reliance,  both  in  defence  and  attack. 

The  author  comes  next,  to  the  consideration  of  the  passages  that 
relate  to  the  baptism  of  John,  Matt.  iii.  1.  The  first  thing  he  quarrels 
with  is,  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  our  view  of  it,  as  it  regards  the  title 
of  the  Baptist.  "  The  dipper,"  he  says, "  is  offensive,  not  merely  because 
it  is  strange,  but  especially  because  it  has  no  apparent  fitness  to  his 
work,  as  the  great  predicted  reformer  of  the  day."     On  this  I  remark, 

1.  This  is  a  most  unjustifiable  foundation  of  evidence  in  a  matter  that 
must  be  decided  solely  by  the  testimony  of  language,  according  to  the 
legitimate  laws  of  interpretation.  The  meaning  of  what  is  said,  is  to  be 
determined  solely  on  the  authority  of  the  meaning  of  words,  ascertained 
by  the  occurrences  in  the  language  of  the  documents.  Our  business  is 
to  examine  what  is  the  meaning  of  his  title,  not  to  speculate  on  what 
would  have  been  the  most  suitable  title.  I  am  quite  contented  to  learn 
from  the  word  of  God.  I  never  presume  to  dictate  to  it :  our  view  of 
fitness  is  no  ground  on  which  to  rest  faith. 

2.  This  is  a  most  hazardous  way  of  attempting  to  settle  the  question 


332  REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

If  it  shall  be  found  in  the  day  of  judgment,  that  the  meaning  of  this  title 
is  what  this  writer  represents  as  so  unsuitable  and  improper,  is  it  a  light 
thing  to  find  folly  in  the  Divine  wisdom  ?  The  Spirit  of  wisdom  calls 
him  John  the  Baptist ;  if  this  is  John  the  dipper,  then  this  writer  rebukes 
the  Spirit  of  God,  as  employing  an  unsuitable  title  to  designate  the  office 
of  John.  Is  it  becoming,  is  it  wise,  to  risk  such  observations?  Will 
men  never  cease  to  teach  the  Almighty  ? 

3.  This  observation  is  as  absurd  as  it  is  impious.  How  is  it  that  the 
writer  did  not  perceive  that  even  had  John  been  called  the  purifier,  the 
title  must  refer  to  the  rite,  and  not  to  spiritual  purification  I  It  was 
as  a  baptizer,  not  as  a  great  reformer,  that  John  had  his  title,  whatever 
may  be  supposed  its  import.  Did  John  purify  any  man  from  sin  ?  This 
is  as  rank  Puseyism  as  ever  proceeded  from  the  cave  of  the  Pythoness 
in  Oxford. 

"  It  is  surely  more  likely,"  says  the  writer,  "  that  John  and  his 
disciples  would  select  a  name  that  would  express  what  was  spiritual, 
than  one  that  would  express  only  what  was  sensible."  Is  it  not  strange 
to  astonishment  that  he  could  venture  such  a  speculation,  with  the  word 
circumcision  before  his  eyes?  Did  this  word  express  what  was  spiritual, 
or  what  was  sensible  ?  A  volume  of  such  assertions  would  not  form  the 
shadow  of  an  argument. 

How  John's  title  was  originally  conferred,  we  are  not  informed ;  but 
whatever  way  he  got  it,  we  know  it  only  is  the  title  by  which  he  is  desig- 
nated by  the  Spirit  of  inspiration.  But  whether  the  title  is  Divine  or 
human,  the  argument  from  the  word  is  perfectly  the  same.  The  title  is 
from  the  ritual  service. 

It  is  most  lamentable  that  a  dissenter  should  speak  of  the  spiritual 
portion  of  John's  icork.  Did  the  spiritual  work  belong  to  John?  If 
John  was  a  spiritual  purifier,  then  baptism  is  salvation. 

4.  But  did  the  writer  forget  that  Tertullian,  and  a  multitude  of 
translators,  have  designated  John  by  the  very  title  supposed  to  be  so 
unsuitable  and  offensive  ?  Here  fact  refutes  theory.  Can  demonstration 
be  stronger  ?     John  the  dipper  was  the  usual  title  of  the  prophet.  * 

"  The  term  baptize,"  says  the  writer,  "  is  used  alone,  and  in  connexion 
with  the  names  of  places.  Why  dost  thou  baptize  ?  John  was  baptizing 
at  the  downs,  at  Bethany,  at  Enon.  Now  terms  denoting  a  definite  end 
may  with  propriety  be  thus  used,  but  not  terms  denoting  a  general  mode 
of  action." 

This  has  an  appearance  of  profound  philology  ;  but  it  is  an  appearance 
only  to  those  who  are  unacquainted  with  the  effect  of  the  principle  of 
grammatical  appropriation.  When  a  word  is  appropriated  to  a  rite,  the 
frequency  of  its  application  when  speaking  on  the  subject  enables  us  to 
use  it  with  an  ellipsis  of  the  words  usually  connected  with  it  in  other 
cases.  The  thing  is  of  so  frequent  occurrence  in  the  conversation  of  every 
day,  that  I  am  surprised  that  any  one  who  has  paid  any  attention  to  the 
philosophy  of  language,  should  overlook  it.  Should  any  person  but  a 
priest  anoint  a  sick  person  with  oil  for  the  good  of  his  soul,  every  Roman 
Catholic  would  ask  him,  Why  do  you  anoint  ?  He  would  not  think  it 
necessary  in  order  to  be  intelligible,  to  say,  Why  do  you  anoint  dying 


REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  333 

persons  with  oil,  for  the  salvation  of  their  souls,  as  you  are  not  a  priest  ? 
Indeed  every  trade  and  every  workshop  exemplify  this  process  every  day, 
though  it  is  so  strange  to  this  Biblical  critic.  But  it  is  strange  that  the 
writer  did  not  perceive  that  the  word  circumcise  can  be  used  in  the  same 
way.  Can  we  not  say,  Why  do  you  circumcise  1  Why  do  you  cut  around? 
Here  the  philosophy  of  this  critic  would  object,  "  terms  denoting  a  gen- 
eral end  may  with  propriety  be  thus  used,  but  not  terms  denoting  a  gen- 
eral mode  of  action."  The  word  circumcision,  then,  cannot  signify  to 
cut  around,  but  it  must  signify  to  purify. 

The  word,  baptize,  whatever  may  be  supposed  its  signification,  was 
appropriated  to  the  Christian  rite,  and  in  that  meaning  it  may  be  used 
in  the  manner  objected  to,  with  the  strictest  propriety,  and  with  the  most 
lucid  perspicuity.  Indeed  even  purify  itself,  had  it  been  appropriated 
to  this  ordinance,  would  be  subject  to  the  same  law.  In  the  question, 
Why  dost  thou  purify?  there  is  an  ellipsis  of  "  thy  disciples  with  water, 
as  an  emblem  of  the  washing  away  of  their  sins." 

"  This  word,"  says  the  writer,  "  is  so  associated  with  the  terms  be- 
longing to  religion,  that  it  is  highly  probable  the  accordance  of  signifi- 
cation was  such  as  to  favour  the  union.  Jesus  having  been  dipped  and 
praying,  is  felt  at  once  to  be  incongruous." 

Here  again  circumcision  destroys  the  philosophy  of  the  critic.  Could 
it  not  be  said  of  a  proselyte  of  Judaism,  "  having  been  circumcised  he 
prayed?"  Whenever  a  modal  word  is  appropriated  to  a  rite,  it  designates 
that  rite  in  every  reference,  and  the  appropriation  supplies  what  is  neces- 
sary. When  it  is  said,  "  Jesus  having  been  immersed,  prayed,"  it  is  as 
well  known  that  the  immersion  relates  to  the  rite,  as  that  prayer  was 
offered  to  God. 

"  The  contrast  made  between  the  baptism  with  water,"  says  the  writer, 
"  and  the  baptism  with  a  holy  influence  and  with  fire,  would  alone  indi- 
cate the  meaning  of  the  word.  Fire  is  commonly  employed  in  the  Bible 
as  emblematical  of  the  means  of  destruction." 

1.  This  observation  is  founded  on  the  same  erroneous  view  of  figura- 
tive language,  on  which  Wiseman  rests  his  defence  of  transubstantiation. 
A  figurative  application  of  a  word  needs  resemblance  only  to  justify  it : 
it  disdains  the  sanction  of  precedent. 

2.  Even  when  fire  is  to  burn,  the  thing  subjected  to  it  may  not  be 
destroyed,  but  rendered  more  valuable.  Were  not  some  things  under 
the  law  purified  by  passing  through  fire?  And  when  Christians  are  im- 
mersed in  the  fire  of  affliction,  they  are  not  destroyed ;  they  lose  nothing 
but  their  dross. 

3.  I  care  not  what  the  writer  may  understand  by  the  baptism  of  fire. 
Let  it  be  the  fire  of  persecution,  of  affliction,  even  of  hell,  the  emblem  is 
suitable.    Immersion  in  fire  is  intelligible,  both  literally  and  figuratively. 

"  The  words  of  John,"  says  the  writer,  "  were  addressed  to  an  assem- 
bly of  those  who  would  believe  in  Christ,  and  of  those  who  would  reject 
him.  It  was  not  true  that  all  would  be  baptized  with  a  sacred  influence. 
It  is  more  likely,  therefore,  that  the  two  baptisms  had  a  corresponding 
reference  to  the  two  classes  of  which  his  audience,  and  the  whole  Jewish 
nation,  consisted,  than  that  both  should  relate  to  the  one  smaller  portion." 


334  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

1.  John's  saying,  I  baptize  you,  addressing  the  people  in  genera],  did 
not  imply  either  that  he  baptized  the  whole  nation,  or  the  whole  of  the 
present  audience.  Therefore,  when  he  says  of  Jesus,  he  shall  baptize 
you,  it  is  not  implied  that  Jesus  baptized,  in  any  sense,  either  the  whole 
Jewish  nation,  or  the  whole  of  John's  present  audience. 

2.  This  phraseology  imports  merely  that  John  baptized  those  of  the 
Jews  who  became  his  disciples;  therefore  the  same  phraseology  implies 
when  spoken  of  Jesus,  that  he  baptized  those  among  the  Jews  who 
became  his  disciples.  This  corresponds  both  with  fact  and  with  phra- 
seology. 

3.  The  author's  exposition  is  inconsistent  with  itself.  He  makes 
Christ's  baptism  one  baptism,  and  two  baptisms.  If  it  refers  to  the 
whole  nation,  purified  by  the  destruction  of  his  enemies,  it  includes 
both  classes.  In  this  light,  it  has  no  reference  to  baptism  in  any  view. 
Baptism  does  not  represent  the  purification  of  the  Jewish  nation,  nor 
of  any  nation  ;  but  the  purification  of  sinners  individually,  from  their 
own  sins. 

If  there  are  two  baptisms,  one  for  one  class,  and  another  for  another, 
then  how  can  it  be  the  one  baptism  that  purifies  the  nation  1  The  class 
that  has  the  baptism  of  this  sacred  influence,  has  not  the  baptism  of  fire; 
yet  it  is  the  baptism  of  fire  that  separates  the  pure  from  the  impure ;  and 
both  must  be  immersed  in  the  trying  fire. 

4.  There  are  not  two  classes  in  these  baptisms.  The  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  and  the  baptism  of  fire,  belong  to  the  same  persons.  "  He  shall 
baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire."  Every  person  who  has  the  one 
baptism,  has  the  other. 

"  The  collecting  the  wicked,"  says  the  writer,  "  and  the  burning  of 
the  chaff,  are  described  as  the  purifying  of  the  threshing-floor."  Even 
this  is  not  a  correct  explanation  of  the  figure.  It  is  the  separation  of 
the  chaff  from  the  wheat ;  not  the  collecting  of  the  wheat,  and  the  burn- 
ing of  the  chaff,  that  is  the  purification.  The  collecting  of  the  wheat, 
and  the  burning  of  the  chaff,  do  not  take  place  even  at  the  same  time 
with  this  purification.  But  what,  has  this  figure  to  do  with  baptism  ? 
The  separation  of  Israel  after  the  spirit,  from  Israel  after  the  flesh,  was 
a  purging  of  the  threshing-floor ;  but  this  is  quite  a  different  purifica- 
tion from  that  which  is  represented  by  the  ordinance  of  Christ.  So  far 
from  being  the  baptism  of  Christ,  this  purification  has  not  the  same 
emblem  with  the  baptism  of  Christ.  Besides,  it  is  not  the  destruction 
of  the  unbelieving  Israelites  that  is  the  purification  of  the  figure. 
There  is  nothing  right  in  this  explication  of  the  figurative  language  of 
John  the  Baptist.  The  purgation  of  the  nation  might  have  taken  place, 
had  there  been  no  such  ordinance  as  baptism ;  and  baptism  would  have 
been  the  same,  had  Israel  been  all  believers,  and  needed  no  national 
purgation. 

"  The  baptism  of  a  number  of  persons,"  he  continues,  "  is  confined 
to  the  cleansing  of  a  threshing-floor."  Now  where  is  the  comparison 
to  be  found?  The  baptism  of  a  number  of  persons  is  not  compared 
to  a  threshing-floor.  Nothing  like  this  is  said.  The  separation  of  the 
natural  and  spiritual  Israel,  is  compared  to  the  winnowing  of  grain; 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE.  335 

but  there  is  no  comparison  at  all  between  baptism  and  the  cleansing  of 
a  threshing-floor.  It  is  astonishing  that  writers  will  leave  themselves 
open  to  detection  and  rebuke,  by  such  reckless  assertions.  Would  any 
lawyer,  even  on  a  case  of  life  and  death,  put  it  in  the  power  of  his 
opponent,  to  charge  him  with  so  serious  a  misrepresentation,  in  reason- 
ing from  a  written  document?  I  would  let  the  honour  of  revelation 
itself  suffer,  rather  than  undertake  to  protect  it  by  such  an  asseveration. 
Let  baptism  be  reasoned  out  of  the  world,  rather  than  uphold  it  by  such 
reasons. 

The  question  put  to  John,  has  no  reference  either  to  the  mode  or  to 
the  nature  of  the  ordinance.  Whatever  had  been  the  thing  done  by 
him,  which  was  not  in  obedience  to  the  ceremonial  law,  would  equally 
have  given  occasion  to  the  question.  They  questioned  his  authority, 
on  the  ground  that  he  was  not  one  of  the  persons  whom  they  expected. 
Had  he  been  such  a  person,  whether  he  dipped,  or  sprinkled,  or  poured, 
would  never  have  been  questioned.  If  he  was  not  one  of  the  persons 
expected,  why  did  he  introduce  among  the  Jews  anything  not  enjoined 
by  the  law  of  Moses  ? 

"  But  dipping  the  multitudes  into  the  Jordan,"  says  he,  "  would  be  an 
act  of  itself  requiring  explanation."  If  the  person  were  recognised  or 
commissioned  by  God,  would  his  mode  of  practising  a  rite  be  questioned? 
If  he  were  not  recognised,  not  the  mode  of  the  rite,  but  the  rite  itself, 
would  be  questioned. 

The  difficulty  found  in  the  number  baptized  by  John,  is  not  worthy 
of  a  moment's  consideration.     It  is  capable  of  many  solutions. 

1.  If  John  requires  more  time  for  his  work,  I  shall  lengthen  his  com- 
mission. How  long  he  entered  on  his  work  before  our  Lord  entered  on 
his,  I  will  allow  nothing  but  inspiration  to  determine.  I  care  nothing 
for  human  conjectures  and  probabilities. 

2.  There  is  no  necessity  to  suppose  that  John  baptized  all  personally. 
He  might  have  employed  the  instrumentality  of  others  along  with  him- 
self. Indeed,  without  any  reference  to  the  difficulty,  I  perceive  no  rea- 
son to  believe  that  John  declined  assistance  in  the  work  of  baptism. 
Christ's  baptism  is  surely  equally  important :  Christ  baptized  none ;  Paul 
baptized  but  few;  and  if  the  converts  made  by  the  brethren  scattered 
by  the  persecution,  at  the  death  of  Stephen,  were  baptized  at  all,  they 
must  have  been  baptized  by  unofficial  brethren.  That  Puseyism,  which 
is  now  so  general,  even  among  dissenters,  has  not  a  vestige  of  authority 
in  the  practice  of  the  first  churches.  Every  man  has  a  right  to  preach 
the  Gospel,  which  is  a  higher  privilege  than  baptizing;  and  every  Chris- 
tian man  has  a  right  to  baptize  believers. 

This  writer,  indeed,  tells  us  that,  "  It  should  be  remarked  that  it  is 
expressly  stated,  that  the  people  were  all  baptized  by  him :  not  by  his 
disciples."  No  such  thing  is  expressly  stated.  Where  is  it  expressly 
stated,  "not  by  his  disciples?"  I  am  astonished  at  such  assertions. 
We  are  told  that  "  Herod  laid  hold  of  John,  and  bound  him,  and  put 
him  in  prison."  Did  Herod  do  this  himself?  Did  he  perform  the 
work  of  a  constable  ?  The  conversation  of  every  hour  exemplifies  this 
phraseology. 


336  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

3.  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  number  of  those  baptized  by  John 
should  be  so  great,  as  stated  by  this  writer.  The  language  of  hyperbole 
is  not  capable  of  arithmetical  calculation.  The  writer,  with  great  can- 
dour, admits  that  the  language  "  need  not  be  understood  as  meaning 
every  individual :  but  it  must  be  interpreted  in  reference  to  the  larger 
portion  of  the  population."  Now,  if  the  bankrupt  put  himself  into  my 
hands,  I  will  oblige  the  creditor  to  compound  for  a  much  smaller  sum. 
This  is  a  new  law  of  hyperbole,  Where  is  it  found?  On  what  is  it 
grounded  ?  It  is  a  mere  figment,  unauthorised  by  any  principle.  To 
justify  a  hyperbole,  I  maintain,  it  is  not  necessary  that  truth  should 
extend  to  the  larger  portion.  When  the  evangelist  says,  "  And  there  are 
also  many  other  things  which  Jesus  did ;  the  which,  if  they  should  be 
written  every  one,  I  suppose  that  even  the  world  itself  could  not  contain 
the  books  that  should  be  written,"  must  fact  extend  to  the  larger  portion 
of  the  literal  amount? 

4.  Every  hyperbole  must  be  limited  by  impossibility ;  it  cannot,  in 
any  case,  be  extended  beyond  what  is  possible.  It  cannot  oblige  John, 
then,  to  baptize  in  a  certain  time,  more  than  can  in  that  time  be  baptized. 

5.  Were  the  thing  asserted  admitted,  according  to  the  modal  meaning 
of  the  word,  to  be  impossible,  to  assign  another  meaning,  not  in  proof, 
would  not  relieve  Christians  from  the  difficulty.  The  infidel  might  justly 
object  to  such  a  solution.  "  I  deny,"  he  might  say,  "  that  the  word  has 
the  meaning  that  you  allege.  The  assertion,  then,  is  a  falsehood." 
This  objection,  then,  is  the  objection  of  an  infidel.  Were  it  a  just 
objection,  it  would  not  give  the  word  another  meaning.  It  bears  on  the 
truth  or  falsehood  of  the  Scriptures,  not  on  their  interpretation.  Should 
a  man  report  that  in  Roman  Catholic  chapels,  all  the  people  are  immersed; 
and  when  challenged,  should  defend  himself  by  saying,  that  he  meant 
that  they  were  sprinkled  with  holy  water;  would  his  interpretation 
relieve  him  from  the  charge  of  falsehood  ?  And  immerse  does  not  more 
uniformly  signify  clip  in  English,  than  does  baptizo  in  Greek.  The 
evangelist,  then,  cannot  be  justified  by  such  interpretation.  If  John  did 
not  immerse  his  disciples,  the  narrative  of  the  evangelist  is  false. 

6.  At  this  distance  of  time  there  may  be  in  Scripture  records  many 
difficulties  apparently  incapable  of  solution,  that  after  all  may  be  per- 
fectly true.  We  never  give  up  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures  for  such  diffi- 
culties, and  we  never  solve  them  by  denying  the  authenticated  meaning 
of  words. 

7.  The  great  difficulty  in  performing  immersion  is  altogether  un- 
founded. Any  way  of  putting  the  person  under  water  is  equally  an 
immersion,  and  equally  an  emblem  of  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection 
of  Christ  and  his  people  with  him.  There  is  no  need  of  dramatic 
representation.  Indeed  there  is  no  uniform  way  of  burial.  There  can 
be,  then,  no  propriety  in  endeavouring  to  imitate  the  custom  of  any 
nation  in  committing  the  body  to  the  earth.  Whether  the  person  is 
immersed  on  his  back,  or  his  face,  or  by  sinking  directly  downwards,  is 
perfectly  the  same  as  to  baptism.  The  easiest  way  is  preferable ;  and 
in  deep  water  to  press  the  person  down,  or  forwards,  may  be  done  with 
the  greatest  convenience.    Instead  of  keeping  John  the  Baptist  ten  hours 


REPLY   TO   THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE.  337 

every  day  in  the  water,  I  will  not  oblige  him  to  go  into  the  water  at  all : 
he  mio-ht  have  stood  on  the  brink.  Philip  and  the  eunuch,  indeed, 
went  both  into  the  water,  and  in  many  cases  this  may  be  still  necessary ; 
but  it  is  not  essential  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  This  case,  however, 
has,  in  the  Divine  wisdom,  been  recorded  to  confound  obstinacy. 

With  respect  to  delicacy,  it  would  be  easy  from  the  law  of  Moses  to 
make  a  comparison  with  this  rite ;  but  I  do  not  design  to  defend  an 
ordinance  of  God  from  such  a  charge.  I  prove  God's  law  from  his  own 
word.     He  who  charges  it  with  indelicacy,  charges  God  himself. 

The  author  thinks  that  an  immersion  with  garments  on  is  inconsistent 
with  the  idea  of  purification.  Does  he  forget  that  in  their  purifications, 
the  Jews  were  sprinkled  on  their  garments?  Is  he  not  aware  that 
Josephus  represents  the  female  Essenes  as  bathing  with  their  garments 
on ;  and  the  males  as  covered  with  a  veil  or  girdle  round  the  waist  ? 
Does  not  Herodotus  represent  the  Egyptian,  after  touching  a  swine,  as 
plunging  immediately  into  a  river  with  his  garments  on  ?  Do  not 
Roman  Catholics  continually  purify  by  sprinkling  on  the  people  with 
their  garments  on? 

The  writer  has  an  argument  from  the  probable  want  of  conveniences 
for  immersion.  Does  he  really  think  that  the  Scripture  history  must 
give  an  account  of  such  things  ?  Must  we  go  back  eighteen  centuries 
to  find  a  change  of  raiment,  &c.  ?  We  have  nothing  to  do  with  inquiries 
of  this  kind.  I  prove  that  they  were  immersed, — I  care  not  from  what 
sources  they  had  suitable  conveniences.  Would  any  one  think  of  making 
such  an  objection,  if  the  narrative  respected  even  modern  times,  and 
asserted  immersion? 

Section  VII. — Prepositions  Construed  with  the  Verb. — The 
author  comes  next  to  the  consideration  of  the  prepositions  construed  with 
this  verb.  He  tells  us,  "that,  according  to  the  testimony  of  most  critics, 
en  has  the  signification  of  at,  and  apo  offro?n.  Apo  rarely  has  the  sense 
of  out  of,  but  en  very  frequently  has  the  sense  of  in.  A  few  instances  of 
the  signification  of  at  and  from  are  given  below." 

Whatever  may  be  the  testimony  of  qritics,  I  deny  that  en  ever  signifies 
at ;  and  it  never  has  been  argued  by  me  that  in  the  cases  that  refer  to 
baptism,  apo  must  signify  out  of  When  the  writer,  then,  grants  that 
the  preposition  rarely  has  this  signification,  he  grants  me  more  than 
I  will  accept.  I  deny  that  it  ever  signifies  out  of  I  shall  not  force  the 
word  to  do  more  for  me  than  what  it  can  do  honestly.  But  let  us  first 
attend  to  the  preposition  en.  In  a  note  the  writer  gives  us  a  number  of 
examples,  in  which  he  alleges  that  it  signifies  at.  Now  I  dispute  this 
with  respect  to  every  instance  that  he  has  alleged.  En  in  Greek  no 
more  signifies  at,  than  does  in  English  the  preposition  in.  We  can  as 
often  convert  in  and  at  as  the  Greeks  could  en  and  para,  or  epi.  We 
may  often  say  indifferently,  at  a  place  or  in  a  place ;  but  this  does  not 
imply  that  in  such  cases  in  signifies  at,  or  that  at  signifies  in.  The  pre- 
positions have  always  their  own  characteristic  meaning ;  while  in  cases 
innumerable  they  may  be  substituted  for  each  other. 

The  first  instance  which  he  alleges  of  en  in  the  sense  of  at,  is  in  the 

43 


338  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE. 

phrase  en  Troie,  which  occurs  several  times  in  Homer.  At  Troy,  says 
the  writer, — in  Troy,  say  I.  But  I  shall  be  asked,  How  was  it  in  Troy  ? 
Did  they  fight  within  the  walls  of  the  city  ?  No,  but  every  one  who 
knows  anything  of  such  matters,  knows,  that  the  district  around  a  city 
was  always  spoken  of  by  the  name  of  the  city.  The  name  of  the  city 
was  given  to  the  whole  adjoining  country.  I  can  demonstrate  this,  even 
with  respect  to  this  instance,  as  clearly  as  ever  a  mathematical  proposi- 
tion was  demonstrated.  Does  not  Homer  call  the  city  "  the  fertile 
Troy  ¥'  Was  it  within  the  walls  that  it  was  fertile  ?  Was  it  not  the 
country  about  the  city  that  was  fertile?  The  Grecian  heroes,  then,  who 
fell  near  wind-swept  Ilium,  fell  in  Troy.  Now  this  criticism  will  apply 
to  his  examples  from  every  city. 

The  next  example  is  from  Homer  also— en  proto  rumo,  literally,  "  in 
the  first  pole."  The  place  where  the  pole  of  the  chariot  snapped,  was  in 
the  first  part  of  it.  I  think  the  phraseology  implies  that  there  were  two 
poles  joined  together,  as  the  topmast  is  joined  to  the  mainmast  of  a  ship, 
or  like  the  different  parts  of  a  fishing  rod.  But  whatever  may  be  in  this, 
it  is  most  certain  that  it  is  in  the  first  pole  that  the  chariot  is  said  to  have 
been  broken.  Besides,  it  must  necessarily  have  been  within  the  pole  that 
it  was  broken.  Could  the  pole  be  broken  outside  the  pole?  It  is  in  the 
first  pole,  not  at  the  first  pole.  At  the  first  pole  would  be  near  the  first 
pole,  and  would  be  in  the  second  pole,  or  second  part  of  the  pole. 

He  gives  another  example  from  Homer — the  spear  was  broken — -eni 
kaulo,  at  the  top.  At  the  tip,  or  at  the  point,  would  be  a  very  good  trans- 
lation, according  to  our  idiom.  But  kaulos  does  not  signify  top;  it 
denotes  the  whole  blade,  or  metal  part  of  the  spear,  like  the  top  of  a 
halbert.  Now  it  was  not  at  this  part,  but  in  this  part,  that  the  weapon 
broke.  The  breach  may  have  been  in  any  part  of  the  blade,  from  the 
utmost  extremity  of  the  point  to  the  wooden  shaft.  The  preposition  is 
used  altogether  in  its  own  primary  meaning. 

The  next  instance  is  the  ambuscade  represented  on  the  shield  of 
Achilles.  The  ambuscade  is  represented  as  placed  en  potomo,  "  at  the 
river,"  says  the  writer, — in  the  river,  say  I.  It  was  within  the  banks  of 
the  river  that  the  ambuscade  lodged.  This  is  a  much  better  place  for  an 
ambuscade  than  the  bank  of  a  river, — especially  as  they  lay  in  wait  for 
the  cattle  which  were  driven  to  drink  at  that  place.  Cowper  and  other 
translators  have  entirely  missed  the  meaning  of  this  passage.  The 
ambuscade  was  not  on  the  banks  of  the  river,  but  within  the  banks. 
Accordingly  we  find  that  the  ensuing  battle,  in  driving  away  the  cattle, 
is  not  en  potomo,  but  para  ochthas, — not  in  the  river,  but  at  the  banks 
of  the  river.  That  an  ambush  should  be  laid  in  such  a  place,  will  not 
startle  any  one  who  considers  the  account  given  by  Ulysses,  of  an  am- 
buscade in  which  he  was  concerned  at  Troy  : — 


"  Approaching  to  the  city's  lofty  wall 
Through  the  thick  bushes  and  the  reeds  that  girt 
The  bulwarks,  down  we  lay,  flat  in  the  marsh, 
Under  our  arms.     Then,  Boreas,  blowing  loud, 
A  rueful  night  came  on,  frosty  and  charged 
With  snow  that  blanched  us  thick  as  morning  rime, 
And  every  shield  with  ice  was  crystall'd  o'er."— Cowper. 


REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  339 

The  next  passage  cited  by  the  author  is  that  which  in  the  Iliad 
represents  the  stopping  of  the  mules  and  horses  of  Priam  to  drink  en 
potomo — in  the  river,  as  he  went  to  the  Grecian  camp  to  redeem  the  body 
of  Hector.  The  preposition  has  here  strictly  its  usual  meaning — it  was 
in  the  river  that  the  horses  drank.  According  to  our  idiom  we  may 
say  either  at  the  river,  or  in  the  river  ;  but  in  the  river  is  the  idiom  of 
the  original,  and  it  is  literal  fact. 

The  passage  next  cited  by  the  author  is  that  which  refers  to  Ulysses 
escaped  from  shipwreck,  and  lying  on  the  bank  of  a  river.  He  has 
only  the  choice  whether  to  watch  all  the  rueful  night  en  potomo — in  the 
river,  or  to  ascend  the  acclivity.  But  why  in  the  river  ?  Is  he  not  out 
of  the  river  ?  Why  does  he  suppose  a  necessity  of  going  into  it  again  ? 
The  reason  is  obvious.  If  he  does  not  choose  to  ascend  the  acclivity 
and  go  into  the  wood  for  shelter,  and  make  a  leafy  couch,  he  must  lodge 
in  the  river  under  the  cover  of  its  banks.  It  is  not  at  the  river,  but  in 
the  river  that  he  supposes  himself  to  watch.  On  the  bank  he  could 
have  no  shelter ;  in  the  river  he  would  have  the  shelter  of  the  bank. 
He  might  be  in  the  river,  yet  not  in  the  water :  all  within  the  banks  is 
the  river. 

The  daughter  of  the  king  of  Phseacia  is  said  to  have  stopped  her  car, 
en  prothuroisi,  in  the  vestibule.  The  word  includes  the  whole  court  be- 
fore the  gate.     It  is  not  at,  but  in. 

The  next  instance  brought  forward  by  this  writer  to  prove  that  en 
sometimes  signifies  at,  is  en  prochoes  potomou,  translated  by  him,  "At 
the  mouth  of  the  river."  But  it  is  better  translated  by  Cowper,  "  Within 
the  eddy-whirling  river's  mouth." 

The  next  is  from  Herodotus,  translated  by  this  writer,  "  A  city  at 
the  Euxine  sea."  But  this  translation  misses  the  whole  spirit  of  the 
phrase.  The  city  is  said  en  Euxino  ponto  matista  kakeimenon,  the  city 
Jay  almost,  or  very  much,  in  the  Euxine  sea. 

The  sea-fight  en  Krupo,  in  Cyprus,  is  to  be  understood  like  the 
phrase,  "  in  Troy."  The  sea  about  Cyprus  may  be  called  Cyprus.  We 
could  employ  the  same  idiom.  In  like  manner,  the  Greeks  are  said  to 
conquer  the  Persians  in  Salamis.  Overthrown  in  Drebescus — not  at 
Drebescus ;  though  our  idiom  may  prefer  this  in  translation.  The  use 
of  the  word  in  reference  to  towns  and  islands  may  be,  in  every  instance, 
accounted  for  by  what  has  been  observed  with  respect  to  the  use  of  the 
name  of  the  city  of  Troy.  The  example  from  Xenophon,  in  the  Euxine 
sea,  may  be  accounted  for  on  the  same  principle  with  that  from  Hero- 
dotus. Nothing  is  more  common  than  to  speak  of  a  town  situated  in  a 
bason  of  the  sea,  as  lying  in  the  sea.  A  promontory  is  even  said  to  run 
into  the  sea.  Homer  speaks  of  the  tomb  of  Achilles  as  prochouse,  on 
a  tall  promontory,  shooting  far  into  the  spacious  Hellespont.  Odys. 
xxiv.  82. 

Why  does  he  say  at  Gilgal,  1  Sam.  xv.  4  ?  Is  it  not  in  Gilgal  ?  Does 
not  our  version  render  it,  in  Telaim  ?  Why  does  he  say  at  the  brook, 
verse  5?  What  forbids  the  place  of  the  ambush  to  be  in  the  brook? 
Why,  at  the  brook,  1  Kings  xvii.  5?  Could  not  the  prophet  take  up 
his  residence  within  the  banks  of  the  brook  ?     Why,  at  the  corners  of 


340  REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE. 

the  streets,  Matt.  vii.  5?  Does  ever  our  idiom  forbid  in  the  corner  of 
the  streets?  Why,  tower  at  Siloam,  Luke  xiii.  4?  What  objection 
can  be  to  in  Siloam?  Why,  at  the  treasury,  John  viii.  20?  Why 
not,  in  the  treasury  ?  On  the  right  hand  is  as  suitable  to  our  idiom  as 
at  the  right  hand.  In  the  right  hand,  is  in  the  region  or  place  to  the 
right. 

Schleusner  adds  other  examples  of  this  signification,  which  are  not 
more  to  the  purpose.  Sta)iding  in  the  holy  place,  Matt.  xxiv.  15,  he 
understands  as  referring  to  the  Roman  army  brought  forward  to  the 
city  and  temple;  but  this  conceit  deserves  no  attention.  Whatever 
may  be  the  holy  place  referred  to,  the  thing  referred  to  is  represented 
as  standing  in  it.  In  the  temple,  John  x.  23,  he  understands,  nigh  the 
temple,  namely,  in  the  porch  of  Solomon.  But  this  whim  is  not  only 
wanton,  but  absurd.  The  porch  of  Solomon  is  here  considered  as  a 
part  of  the  temple.  Jesus  walked  in  the  temple,  in  that  part  of  it  called 
Solomon's  porch. 

In  short,  though  this  preposition  may,  according  to  our  idiom,  be 
frequently  translated  at,  such  cases  are  always  capable  of  analysis 
according  to  the  proper  meaning.  When  there  is  latitude  in  any  phrase 
in  which  this  preposition  is  used,  the  latitude  is  always  in  the  regimen. 
This  is  a  point  which  all  the  grammarians  seem  to  have  overlooked. 

But  even  where  lexicographers  and  grammarians  allege  at  as  one  of 
its  primary  meanings,  they  never  apply  it,  when  the  common  meaning 
will  serve ;  it  is  reserved  for  cases  which  are  supposed  not  to  admit  the 
strict  signification  of  the  word.  This  forms  no  apology  for  those  who 
apply  it  in  the  exigency  of  a  favourite  cause,  when  the  usual  meaning 
would  apply.  Does  any  one  who  deserves  the  name  of  a  lexicographer 
or  grammarian,  understand  en  as  signifying  at  in  reference  to  the  phrase 
en  lordane?  Here  the  preposition  is  not  only  capable  of  its  primary 
meaning,  but  it  is  in  this  sense  that  it  is  always  construed  with  the  verb 
in  question.     Why  should  it  be  otherwise  in  this  instance  ? 

The  writer  proceeds  next  to  give  some  examples  in  which  the  prepo- 
sition elc  signifies  not  out  of,  but  from.  He  should  understand  that  in 
this  controversy  we  are  concerned  with  no  examples  except  such  as 
imply  the  motion  of  an  object  from  one  place  to  another.  Now,  of  such 
cases,  I  still  maintain  what  I  taught  on  this  subject  from  the  beginning, 
that  there  is  no  instance  in  which  the  preposition  signifies  from~— it 
always  means  out  of.  In  Acts  viii.  39,  the  phrase  is  capable  of  no 
translation  but  out  of  the  water,  and  necessarily  implies  that  they  were 
in  the  water. 

But  though  it  does  not  concern  this  controversy,  I  dispute  the  philo- 
logy of  this  writer,  in  every  instance  which  he  has  alleged.  Even  in 
the  first  example,  eh  has  not  the  sense  of  from.  "He  cut  the  hairs 
out  of  the  heads  of  the  lambs"  is  the  Greek  idiom,  which  we  would 
express  by  from.  Every  sound  philologist,  in  expounding  the  Greek 
phrase,  would  observe  that  out  of  is  the  exact  meaning  of  the  original. 
He  would  also  show,  that  this  is  as  agreeable  to  philosophical  principle 
as  our  idiom  from.  Out  of  respects  exterior  space  considered  horizon- 
tally, as  well  as  contrasted  with  interior.    When  we  say  a  man  comes 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  341 

down  out  of  the  hill,  we  do  not  mean  that  he  was  in  the  bowels  of  the 
earth.  Just  so  with  the  hairs  out  of  the  heads  of  the  lambs.  All  the  hair 
of  the  heads  of  the  lambs  was  not  cut,  but  some  of  it  was  cut  out  of  the 
remainder.  Indeed,  to  cut  from  the  head  is  as  difficult  in  a  philosophical 
analysis.  From  respects  not  the  cutting,  for  that  was  at  the  head ;  but 
the  removing  of  it  after  the  cutting.  It  was  cut  at  the  head,  and  then 
removed  from  the  head. 

Though  I  am  going  farther  than  the  cause  I  have  undertaken  requires, 
yet  I  the  more  willingly  follow  the  writer  here,  for  the  sake  of  pointing 
out  to  my  readers  the  source  of  much  false  criticism,  which  affects  every 
subject.  Critics  usually  proceed  upon  the  principle,  that  the  phrase 
which  our  idiom  requires  in  a  translation,  corresponds  exactly  to  the 
idiom  of  the  original.  But  idioms  are  really  different,  so  that  this  can- 
not be  the  case.  An  idiomatic  phrase  in  one  language  cannot  be  exactly 
rendered  by  an  idiomatic  phrase  in  another ;  and  neither  of  them  ought 
to  be  obliged  to  conform  to  the  other.  We  may  say,  to  cut  from,  when 
the  Greeks  would  have  said,  to  cut  out  of;  but  we  are  not  on  that 
account  to  explain  out  of  as  signifying  from,  more  than  we  are  to  explain 
from  by  out  of.  A  Greek,  for  instance,  criticising  on  the  principle  of 
this  writer,  in  comparing  the  English  translation  with  the  original, 
would  say,  "  Here  from  signifies  not  apo,  but  ek — it  is  not  from  the 
head,  but  out  of  the  head."  Why  should  he  say  sol  Because  he 
makes  the  English  idiom  conform  to  the  Greek,  just  as  this  writer 
makes  the  Greek  idiom  conform  to  the  English.  Now  neither  idiom 
conforms  to  the  other ;  each  of  them  explains  on  a  different  principle, 
and  has  a  different  signification,  while  they  both  are  fitted  to  fill  the 
same  place. 

This  is  illustrated  by  the  next  example  alleged  by  this  writer.  We 
say,  from  head  to  foot ;  but  the  Greek  says,  out  of  the  head  into  or  unto 
the  feet.  Homer  represents  one  of  his  slain  heroes  as  lying  on  the  field, 
covered  with  dust  and  filth,  ek  kephales.  Now,  we  translate  this  from 
his  head;  and  from  this  the  writer  argues,  that  the  preposition  signifies 
not  out  of,  but  from.  This  I  maintain  is  not  only  false  as  to  this  instance, 
but  is  founded  on  the  false  principle  above  explained.  It  obliges  the 
idiom  of  one  language  to  conform  to  that  of  another,  when  each  of  them 
has  a  distinct  meaning,  while  they  are  fitted  to  fill  the  same  place  in 
their  respective  languages.  A  Greek  might  as  well  argue  from  this  ex- 
ample, that  from  signifies  out  of,  as  this  writer  argues,  that  ek  signifies 
from.  Neither  idiom  is  to  conform  to  the  other,  while  each  of  them 
must  be  used  in  such  cases  for  the  other  in  translation.  And  with  re- 
spect to  the  philosophy  of  the  English  and  the  Greek  idioms,  the  latter 
is,  in  this  instance,  the  most  exact.  From  head  to  feet  exactly  begins  at 
the  head,  without  including  any  part  of  it;  out  of  commences  within 
the  head.  The  Greek  idiom  covers  the  fallen  hero,  head  and  feet ;  our 
idiom  literally  leaves  head  and  feet  uncovered. 

The  phrase  ek  genees,  we  translate  according  to  our  idiom,  from  his 
birth,  but  it  is  in  Greek  idiom  out  of  his  birth.  The  disease  commenced 
within  the  period  mentioned.  The  Greek  idiom  is  more  philosophical 
than  ours.     The  phrase  ex  hou  cgenonto  Athcnaloi,  is  literally,  "  out  of 


342  REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE. 

the  time  the  Athenians  existed."  The  point  of  time  referred  to  is  any 
point  within  the  period.  The  Greek  idiom  is  here  also  more  philoso- 
phical than  ours.  Such  examples  prove  a  different  idiom,  not  that  the 
preposition  in  the  one  language  is  the  exact  equivalent  of  the  other. 
When  a  mountain  is  said  to  extend  out  of  one  sea  into  another,  its 
extremities  are  supposed  to  reach  into  each  sea.  Though  we  should  say 
from  sea  to  sea,  this  does  not  imply  that  the  Greek  phrase  is  exactly 
equivalent.  We  would  say,  from  Byzantium  to  Heraclea;  the  Greeks 
said,  out  of  Byzantium  into  Heraclea.  We  commence  the  distance  at 
the  town,  the  Greeks  commence  it  within  the  town.  This  does  not  im- 
ply that  the  English  preposition  is  the  exact  translation  of  the  Greek.  In 
the  same  way,  with  respect  to  what  the  writer  translates,  "from  the  dis- 
tant streams  of  Ethiopia."  "Go  from  my  presence;"  the  Greek  is,  "Go 
out  of  my  presence."  And  our  idiom  will  bear  a  literal  translation. 
"They  descended  from  the  hill;"  Greek,  "out  of  the  hill."  They 
were  within  the  horizontal  space  called  the  hill.  The  Greek  is  more 
philosophically  exact.  "  Gather  figs  from  thorns;"  Greek,  out  of  thorns. 
Is  it  not  literally  out  of  the  bush  that  they  were  gathered?  A  Greek, 
considering  from  as  the  translation  of  the  preposition  in  this  phrase, 
agreeably  to  this  writer's  philology,  might  allege,  that  the  English  pre- 
position from  here  signifies  out  of  "A  hair  from  your  head ;"  Greek, 
"  a  hair  out  of  your  head."  And  we  can  say  the  same  thing.  Do  we 
not  say,  that  "  She  tore  the  hair  out  of  her  head  1"  "  Hanging  from  his 
hand ;"  Greek,  "  out  of  Iris  hand."  The  Greek  is  philosophical,  the 
English  is  not.  The  hanging  object  is  partly  within  the  hand.  Is  it 
like  a  philologist  to  argue  from  different  idioms,  that  the  original  must 
conform  to  the  translation?  "  Ships  come  from  Tiberias;"  Greek,  "  out 
of  Tiberias."  "I  come  from  God;"  Greek,  "out  of  God."  "He 
arose  from  supper  ;"  Greek,  "  out  of  supper."  He  rose  and  came  out 
of  the  place  in  which  he  had  supped.  "From  the  chief  priests ;"  Greek, 
"  out  of  the  chief  priests."  The  officers  referred  to  were  those  who 
were  in  attendance  on  the  chief  priests.  "  His  chains  fell  from  his 
hands;"  Greek,  "out  of  his  hands."  The  chain  must  have  been  fastened 
somewhere  within  the  part  of  the  body  which  the  word  hand  designates. 
An  antiquarian,  instead  of  making  the  Greek  idiom  conform  to  the 
English,  would  here  gain  some  information  with  respect  to  the  chain- 
ing of  criminals.  "  They  cast  four  anchors  from  the  stern  ;"  Greek, "  out 
of  the  stern."  And  our  idiom  would  exactly  translate  the  Greek.  "  We 
have  an  altar  from  which  they  have  no  right  to  eat ;"  Greek,  "  out  of 
which."  And  is  it  not  within  the  table  that  the  meat  is  placed  for  eat- 
ing ?  Must  it  not,  then,  be  out  of  the  table  that  they  are  supposed  to 
take  the  food  laid  on  it?  Every  example,  then,  of  this  kind,  I  can 
easily  solve,  on  philosophical  principles,  in  perfect  uniformity  with  the 
proper  meaning  of  this  preposition.  Even  the  secondary  meanings  of 
the  preposition,  which  have  no  respect  to  either  motion  or  place,  may 
generally,  with  ease,  be  reduced  to  the  primary  meaning.  An  effect, 
for  instance,  is  supposed  to  proceed  out  of  its  cause,  and  the  thing 
formed  is  supposed  to  proceed  out  of  the  matter  of  which  it  is  formed. 
But,  in  reference  to  the  present  controversy,  I  have  nothing  to  do  with 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE.  343 

any  examples,  except  such  as  express  the  motion  of  an  object  from 
one  place  to  another.  The  other  examples  I  have  noticed  for  the  sake 
of  overturning  a  false  principle  of  interpretation,  namely,  the  assumption 
that  the  idiom  of  our  language  must  be  a  perfect  equivalent  to  every 
idiom  which  it  translates. 

The  author  grants  that  apo  rarely  signifies  out  of.  But  I  will  not 
avail  myself  of  this  admission,  because  it  admits  what  is  not  true.  Had 
he  said  that  apo  is  sometimes  used  where  ek  is  more  usual,  or  that  there 
are  cases  in  which  either  may  be  used,  I  would  unite  in  the  affirmation. 
But  in  all  such  cases  each  of  the  prepositions  has  still  its  own  peculiar 
meaning.  I  may  say,  I  came  from  town,  or  out  of  town.  Does  this 
imply  that  from  and  out  of  are  perfectly  equivalent  in  any  instance  in 
English?  Perfectly  the  same  is  the  case,  when  apo  and  ek  may  be  sub- 
stituted for  one  another.  Grammarians  and  lexicographers,  as  far  as  I 
have  observed,  are  far  from  being  decisive  authorities  for  secondary 
meaning.  Schleusner  gives  dum,  whilst,  as  one  of  the  secondary  mean- 
ings of  the  preposition  en ;  and  si,  if,  for  another.  The  preposition  never 
has  any  appearance  of  such  signification.  It  is  the  multiplication  of 
meanings,  grounded  on  loose  views  of  the  laws  of  language,  that  has 
enabled  controversialists  to  prove  anything  they  choose  to  undertake. 

According  to  this  way  of  assigning  meanings  to  words,  en  may  be  said 
to  signify  the  very  opposite  of  its  own  signification.  The  signification 
of  ek  may  be  given  to  en,  and  that  of  en  to  the  opposite  ek.  The  Greeks 
speak  of  drinking  in  a  cup,  and  out  of  a  cup.  Here,  then,  we  may  say 
that  ek  signifies  en,  and  en  signifies  out  of.  But  the  two  Greek  phrases 
do  not  express  the  same  idea,  though  they  may  be  used  for  the  same 
actions.  In  the  one  case  the  drinking  refers  to  the  liquor  as  contained 
within  the  cup,  in  the  other  to  the  liquor  as  proceeding  out  of  the  cup. 
Now  if  two  so  different  phrases  are  used  for  the  same  action  in  the  same 
language,  in  accordance  with  the  distinctive  meaning  of  the  words, 
much  more  may  this  be  the  case  with  respect  to  two  idioms  of  different 
languages  employed  to  express  the  same  thing. 

I  have  met  the  encounter  of  Socinians,  who,  without  the  least  scruple, 
degraded  anything  from  the  Scriptures  which  they  could  not  manage  to 
their  satisfaction.  But  criticism  so  licentious  as  that  which  is  employed 
to  evade  the  mode  of  this  ordinance,  I  have  never  witnessed  in  the  most 
reckless  Socinian.  The  word  itself  is  so  obviously  univocal,  that  an 
instance  of  its  use  cannot  be  produced,  irreconcilable  with  this  view ; 
yet  a  meaning  is  arbitrarily  assigned  to  it,  which  it  cannot,  in  a  single 
instance,  be  proved  to  have,  on  the  ground  of  difficulties  and  impossi- 
bilities with  respect  to  its  established  meaning.  The  prepositions  en 
and  ek,  which  are  quite  decisive  in  their  testimony,  have  been  forced 
to  become  lax,  that  their  testimony  on  this  subject  may  be  evaded.  But 
even  if  the  authority  of  lexicographers  is  relied  on  as  asserting  a  rare 
use,  why  should  a  rare  use  be  forced  on  any  of  the  words  in  this 
situation?  Why  should  a  rare  use  be  forced  on  both  of  them?  Why 
should  they  have  this  rare  meaning  in  combination  with  a  word  which 
usually  signifies  immersion,  and  in  combination  with  what  they  usually 
signify,  in  and  out  of?     Why  should  there  be  supposed  such  a  wicked 


344  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

conspiracy  in  all  the  words  in  combination,  to  deceive  the  reader  by 
leaving  their  usual  meaning,  and  assuming  a  rare  meaning? 

In  the  following  extract  we  have  one  of  the  most  astonishing  declara- 
tions that  I  ever  saw  on  paper  from  the  hand  of  a  disciple  of  Christ. 
"If  it  were  asserted,"  says  the  writer,  "that  persons  went  into  the 
water,  and  came  out  of  it,  it  could  not  be  justly  inferred  that  they  went 
in  to  be  dipped.  Where  shoes  were  not  worn,  the  necessity  of  frequently 
washing  the  feet,  might  naturally  make  that  a  part  of  a  ceremonial  or 
symbolical  washing.  It  was  so  used  by  our  Lord  when  he  washed  his 
disciples'  feet.  In  eastern  countries  it  is  common  to  walk  into  the 
stream  to  wash  their  feet."  If  any  man  who  trembles  at  the  word  of 
God,  and  thirsts  for  the  knowledge  of  it  as  to  this  ordinance,  does  not 
see  the  condemnation  of  this  observation  in  its  very  face,  I  should  never 
think  of  presenting  him  with  evidence.  I  cannot  conceive  how  it  can 
satisfy  any  conscience.  If  in  performing  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  we 
have  both  the  baptizer  and  the  baptized  in  the  water,  the  man  who 
cannot  see  proof  in  this  that  there  was  an  immersion  in  the  ordinance, 
appears  to  me  to  be  far  beyond  the  reach  of  evidence.  Jesus  raised  the 
dead,  and  did  not  convince  his  enemies.  It  is  very  true  that  persons 
may  go  into  the  water  to  wash  their  feet,  and  for  a  thousand  other  pur- 
poses. But  here  the  going  into  the  water  was  for  the  purpose  of  the 
baptism.  But  is  any  washing  of  the  feet  mentioned  ?  Baptism  is  the 
only  thing  that  can  here  be  the  reason  of  their  going  into  the  water. 
But  the  washing  of  the  feet  is  no  part  of  the  ceremonial,  because  it  is 
neither  here  nor  any  where  else  enjoined  as  a  part  of  the  ceremonial  of 
baptism.  Should  it,  however,  have  been  a  part  of  the  ceremonial  of 
baptism,  it  must  still  be  a  part  of  the  ceremonial.  Can  either  Pope  or 
Puseyite  abrogate  what  Christ  has  made  a  part,  a  symbolical  part  of  this 
ordinance  ?  Such  an  argument  has  no  force  on  my  conscience.  I  am 
willing  to  observe  this  ordinance  in  any  way  that  can  be  proved  to  be 
the  original  mode ;  but  I  could  not  think  of  looking  Jesus  Christ,  my 
Master,  in  the  face,  and  say  to  him  at  the  same  time,  that  I  am  satisfied 
with  this  argument.  If  it  really  convinces  any  of  Christ's  disciples,  I 
leave  them  to  the  judgment  of  Christ. 

What  has  the  washing  of  the  feet  of  the  disciples  to  do  with  this  subject? 
Was  this  connected  with  baptism?  Was  this  a  part  of  any  ceremonial  ? 
Was  it  not  a  particular  symbolical  action  to  represent  a  general  prin- 
ciple? Besides,  did  our  Lord  take  the  disciples  to  a  river  in  order  to 
wash  their  feet?  Can  such  reasoning  merit  any  other  denomination 
than  that  of  evasion,  as  weak  as  it  is  wicked?  If  it  is  lawful,  no  ordi- 
nance or  doctrine  of  Christ  could  afford  sufficient  proof.  What  proof 
would  satisfy  the  mind  that  can  allow  itself  to  rest  on  such  arguments? 
Again  and  again  we  demand,  what  is  wanting  to  the  proof  that  baptism 
is  immersion  ?  Is  there  any  more  definite  word  to  denote  immersion  ? 
Are  there  any  more  definite  prepositions  to  denote,  in,  into,  and  out  of? 
Can  it  be  shown  with  respect  to  any  word  in  the  Greek  language,  that 
there  are  more  numerous  and  decided  proofs  of  its  meaning,  than  those 
exhibited  in  proof  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  question? 

To  the  argument  from  John  iii.  23,  the  author  replies:  "First,  that 


REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  345 

the  name  Enon,  which  means  the  wefts,  and  also  the  nature  of  the  country, 
favour  the  opinion  that  polla  hudata  denotes  many  streams,  rather  than 
one  large  connexion  of  water."  Let  the  origin  of  the  name  be  what 
he  alleo-es,  it  bears  not  his  conclusion.  All  the  springs  might  unite  in 
forming  one  collection. 

His  second  reason  is,  "  That  the  water  was  necessary,  not  for  bap- 
tizing, but  for  drinking,  ordinary  washings,  cooking,  &c." — necessary 
not  only  for  men,  but  for  asses  and  camels.  "  The  statement,"  he  says, 
"  that  John  was  ■preaching  at  Enon,  because  there  was  abundance  of 
water  there,  would  be  perfectly  proper." 

On  this  I  observe,  1.  Not  a  single  well — not  a  single  bowl  of  water 
was  necessary  for  preaching.  Had  the  whole  of  Judea  been  present  at 
one  sermon,  there  was  no  absolute  need  for  a  drop  of  water.  Our 
opponents  seem  to  think  that  the  people  who  attended  John,  encamped, 
and  remained  with  him  for  a  considerable  time.  There  is  no  reason  to 
believe  that  they  remained  with  him  a  single  night;  there  was  no  neces- 
sity to  remain  a  moment  after  they  were  baptized.  As  for  the  asses 
and  camels,  they  exist  only  in  the  imagination ;  they  might  as  well 
allege  that  the  people  came  to  John  in  steam  carriages.  We  know  that 
the  people  followed  our  Lord  on  foot.  But  had  as  many  asses  and  camels 
attended  John  as  were  possessed  by  Job  in  the  land  of  Uz,  there  was  no 
necessity  for  a  single  fountain  ;  they  could  have  watered  by  the  way. 
Every  candid  person  must  perceive  that  these  are  forced  reasons ;  they 
never  would  suggest  themselves  to  any  one  who  had  not  a  purpose  to 
serve  by  them. 

2.  Jesus  preached  every  where  without  any  respect  to  the  convenience 
of  water,  and  to  greater  multitudes  than  came  to  John.  When  they 
came  to  Jesus  to  the  most  distant  places  without  a  supply  of  food,  it  is 
evident  that  they  did  not  intend  to  make  a  long  stay.  Why  should  they 
stay  longer  with  John?  Jesus  usually  dismissed  the  multitudes  in  time 
to  go  to  their  lodgings ;  and  on  an  occasion  of  staying  later  than  usual, 
it  was  food,  not  water,  that  they  required.  John's  peculiar  work  was 
baptizing,  and  for  that  purpose  he  frequented  such  places  as  afforded 
the  best  facilities  for  performing  immersion  with  convenience.  It  could 
not  then  be  said  that  John  was  preaching  at  Enon  on  account  of  the 
water,  because  preaching  does  not  need  water. 

3.  The  use  of  the  water  here  is  not  left  to  conjecture ;  it  is  specifically 
mentioned :  it  was  for  the  very  purpose  of  baptism.  It  is  added,  also, 
by  the  evangelist,  "  and  they  came  and  were  baptized."  Here  their 
coming  was  not  for  the  purpose  of  hearing,  but  of  being  baptized.  Shall 
we,  then,  overlook  the  reasons  which  the  Holy  Spirit  alleges,  and  allege 
reasons  from  our  own  fancy  ?  Were  this  a  point  of  heathen  antiquity, 
there  never  would  have  been  a  question  on  the  subject.  Ah,  my 
brethren,  why  will  you,  by  your  traditions,  make  void  the  word  of  God  ? 

With  respect  to  the  words  in  the  original,  much  controversy  has  taken 
place  whether  they  ought  to  be  translated  much  water  or  many  waters. 
Either  of  these  will  serve  my  purpose  well  enough.  Neither  much  water 
nor  many  waters  could  be  necessary  for  either  preaching  or  sprinkling. 

The  argument  alleged  by  Baptists  from  the  performance  at  rivers,  the 

44 


346  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE. 

author  answers  in  a  very  strange  way.  "  First,"  says  he,  "  that  the  use 
of  running  water  was  expressly  enjoined  in  the  law  for  the  purifications 
performed  by  sprinkling,  &c."  What  has  this  to  do  with  Christian 
baptism?  Are  we  to  be  guided  in  the  ordinances  of  Christ  by  Jewish 
rites?  Is  it  not  monstrous  to  allege  that  it  was  the  practice,  both  among 
Jews  and  other  nations,  to  go  to  large  collections  of  water,  such  as  rivers 
in  the  sea,  to  observe  purifications  which  needed  very  ^ittle  water? 
Are  gross  superstitions  to  be  a  model  for  Christ's  ordinance  ?  If 
the  author  chooses  to  imitate  either  Jewish  or  heathen  superstitions, 
let  him  follow  his  guide ;  but  let  him  not  allege  these  as  a  model  for 
Christian  baptism.  We  have  nothing  to  do  even  with  the  law  of  Moses. 
Yet  even  the  Mosaic  law  that  required  running,  that  is,  spring  water, 
did  not  require  to  perform  the  rite  either  at  the  river  or  at  the  fountain. 
Is  it  possible  that  this  writer  can  allege  that  the  inspired  messengers  of 
God  practised  baptism  as  a  sprinkling  in  the  neighbourhood  of  rivers, 
from  a  view  of  the  sacredness  of  the  place  ?  No  wonder  that  the  Oxford 
divines  are  paving  a  holy  way  to  the  altar,  when  the  English  Inde- 
pendents speak  of  rivers  as  sacred  places  for  the  performance  of  sacred 
sprinklings  on  their  banks.  Why  not  come  to  Lough  Dergh,  where  they 
can  be  made  drunk  with  sanctity? 

But  if  the  banks  of  rivers  were  at  first  chosen  by  the  inspired  servants 
of  Jesus  for  the  performance  of  sprinkling  in  this  instance,  why  is  not 
this  still  observed  ?  I  have  never  heard  that  the  London  Independents 
go  even  to  Old  Thames  to  perform  their  sprinklings  on  its  banks.  I 
declare  solemnly  that  if  I  met  this  allegation  in  a  detached  form  and 
unauthenticated,  I  should  fear  to  ascribe  it  to  any  friend  of  infant 
sprinkling ;  I  should  strongly  suspect  that  it  was  to  expose  the  cause 
that  it  pretended  to  defend.  It  is  Popery  and  Puseyism  to  suppose  that 
any  place  on  earth  is  more  holy  than  another. 

If  ever  perverseness  was  perverse,  it  is  here.  If  we  drag  them  down 
to  the  water,  they  will  do  nothing  but  sprinkle  on  the  banks  from  their 
view  of  the  sacredness  of  the  place :  and  if  we  force  them  even  into  the 
water,  they  will  do  nothing  but  ceremonially  wash  their  feet.  Can 
anything  be  more  calumnious  with  respect  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ, 
than  to  allege  that  any  part  of  the  sacredness  of  an  ordinance  should 
consist  in  the  place  where  it  is  performed?  Jerusalem  itself  is  not 
more  holy  than  Mount  Gerizim. 

Section  VIII. — The  author  makes  some  observations  on  the  difference 
between  baptisma  and  baptismos.  There  is  a  difference  in  words  of  this 
different  formation;  and  the  constant  use  of  the  former  for  the  ordinance 
of  Christ,  shows  that  the  Scriptures  recognise  the  difference.  But  this 
writer  has  not  been  so  fortunate  as  to  hit  the  difference  in  the  centre  of 
the  mark  :  he  has  hardly  struck  the  hill  on  which  the  target  is  fixed. 
With  respect  to  baptisma,  he  says  that  this  form  "  indicates  that  its 
signification  is  some  effect."  It  does  not  designate  an  effect.  Baptisma. 
is  not  the  effect  produced  by  baptismos ;  it  is  the  rite  performed  by  this 
act.  "The  two  words,"  he  says,  "differ  in  their  meaning,  as  do  the 
English  words,  an  immersing,  an  immersion,  a  purifying,  a  purification/' 


REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  347 

The  words,  I  maintain,  do  not  differ  as  the  English  words  referred  to. 
Immersion,  instead  of  corresponding  to  baptisma,  corresponds  to  bap- 
tismos.  It  is  for  want  of  an  appropriate  English  formation  that  immer- 
sion is  used  as  the  translation  of  baptisma;  and  when  the  participle  is 
used  as  a  substantive,  it  can  translate  baptisma.  If  the  rite  is  spoken  of 
by  the  word  dip,  as  we  have  no  diption,  we  must  say  dipping.  We  have 
no  word  to  correspond  to  baptisma,  whatever  may  be  the  mode  or  the 
nature  of  the  ordinance.  Sprinkling  is  a  similar  formation  to  dipping. 
Perfusion  would  correspond  to  baptismos,  not  to  baptisma.  Purification 
itself  designates  the  act  as  well  as  does  immersion.  The  complaint 
against  the  one  word  stands  equally  against  the  other :  immersion  is  the 
act  of  immersing,  and  for  want  of  an  appropriate  formation,  we  must 
apply  to  the  rite  the  word  that  denotes  the  act.  And  if  the  rite  should 
be  called  purification,  the  same  process  takes  place.  No  philologist 
would  bring  such  a  complaint  against  the  word  immersion  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  baptisma. 

It  may  be  observed  also,  that  though  in  this  instance  the  Greek 
language  affords  us  a  distinct  formation  for  the  rite,  yet  it  does  not  so 
in  all  cases.  Besides,  even  in  that  language,  which  has  the  advantage 
of  having  one  formation  for  the  act,  and  another  for  the  rite,  the  rite 
may  be  designated  by  the  formation  that  signifies  the  act.  Josephus 
employs  baptismos,  the  word  that  signifies  the  act  for  the  rite,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  baptism  of  John. 

But  were  it  a  fact,  that  the  formation  of  the  word  immersion  is  not  an 
adequate  representative  of  the  Greek  formation,  and  that  the  term 
purification  were  free  from  this  objection,  what  would  this  prove? 
Nothing  to  the  purpose :  it  would  affect  only  the  English  term,  and  not 
the  meaning  of  the  Greek  word.  It  would  prove  the  poverty  of  our 
language,  and  its  inadequateness  to  translate  the  Greek,  but  would  not 
in  the  slightest  degree  affect  the  proof  about  the  meaning  of  the  word. 

"  The  difference,"  says  the  writer,  "  between  baptismos  and  baptisma 
is,  that  the  former  denotes  an  act  that  is  transient,  the  latter  an  effect  for 
a  time  permanent."  How  can  this  be,  when  Josephus  employs  baptismos 
where  the  other  form  is  used  in  the  New  Testament,  and  by  the  Greek 
Christians?  Was  not  Christ's  baptism  as  permanent  as  that  of  John? 
Was  not  John's  as  transient  as  that  of  Christ?  But  baptisma  is  not 
an  effect  either  permanent  or  transient — it  is  the  rite.  Immersion  also, 
is  not  an  effect  either  transient  or  permanent,  but  an  act,  or  a  rite. 
Immersing  and  immersion  do  not  differ  as  to  permanency. 

"  If  the  subject,"  he  tells  us,  "  were  left  for  a  while  in  the  water,  then 
the  effect  would  be  rightly  called  an  immersion."  What  sort  of  philology 
is  this?  Is  not  the  immersion  the  act  of  immersing?  What  has  it  to 
do  with  the  length  of  time  that  the  subject  continues  in  the  state  of 
immersion  ?  The  effect  of  immersing  is  not  immersion.  The  effect  of 
immersion  must  be  something  of  which  immersion  is  the  cause.  How 
can  he  say  that  immersion  applies  to  the  effect  of  a  continuation  in  the 
state  of  immersion,  when  every  one  knows  that  we  apply  the  word 
immerse  to  the  most  transient  act,  as  well  as  to  cases  in  which  the  sub- 
ject continues  in  a  state  of  immersion  ?     The  word  has  nothing  to  do 


348  REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE. 

with  the  effect  produced  by  it,  or  the  state  of  the  thing  immersed.  "  The 
sense  of  purifying,"  he  continues,  "  agrees  with  the  peculiarity  of  sense 
belonging  to  baptismos ;  and  that  of  purification,  with  the  peculiarity 
of  sense  belonging  to  baptis?na."  Purification  corresponds  both  to  bap- 
tismos and  baptisma.  We  have  no  other  word  for  the  rite  of  purification, 
but  that  which  signifies  the  act. 

"  When  it  is  said  that  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  came  to  his  bap- 
tism," says  the  writer,  "  reference  obviously  is  made  to  what  he  did. 
But  in  other  places  it  appears,  that  this  word  is  used,  not  for  what  he 
did,  but  for  what  he  taught."  Can  a  word  ever  be  used  without  a 
reference  to  the  thing  signified  by  it?  What  is  the  thing  signified 
by  the  word  baptism?  Is  it  the  name  of  the  rite?  If  it  is  the  name  of 
the  rite,  can  the  name  be  used  without  reference  to  the  rite?  Even 
if  the  name  is  purification,  it  must  have  a  reference  to  the  rite.  The 
author,  if  I  can  venture  to  expound  his  meaning,  seems  to  think  that  the 
word  baptism  is  sometimes  used  not  with  reference  to  the  rite,  but  to  the 
doctrine  connected  with  the  rite.  It  appears  to  me  absurd,  to  suppose 
that  the  name  of  a  rite  should  be  used  without  reference  to  the  rite.  But 
as  soon  as  a  word  is  appropriated  as  the  name  of  a  rite,  every  thing 
included  in  the  rite  will  be  referred  to  it  under  its  appropriated  name, 
whatever  the  name  may  signify.  The  writer  every  where,  seems  not  to 
be  aware  of  the  nature  and  effects  of  grammatical  appropriation.  Are 
not  the  doctrines  implied  in  circumcision,  referred  to  circumcision  ? 
Perfectly  the  same  thing  applies  to  every  appropriated  name.  This 
determines  nothing  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  name  itself.  Now  we 
are  inquiring  not  about  the  doctrines  implied  in  this  rite,  but  about  the 
meaning  of  its  name.  Can  anything,  then,  be  more  useless  than  the 
assertion,  that  corporeal  purification  was  not  the  great  subject  of  John's 
preaching  ?  What  has  this  to  do  with  the  rite  which  he  practised  ?  "  The 
great  doctrine,"  he  continues,  "  taught  by  him  was,  the  necessity  of 
a  spiritual  purification."  Well,  does  this  say  that  the  name  of  the  rite 
which  he  practised  was  spiritual  purification  1  Does  this  forbid  that 
the  name  of  the  rite  should  be  immersion  ? 

The  writer  brings  out  his  point  even  by  mathematical  demonstration, 
in  the  following  words :  "  If  baptism  was  the  chief  theme  of  John's 
preaching,  and  it  is  so  described,  then,  because  repentance  also  was  the 
chief  theme,  baptism  and  repentance  coincide."  1.  Now  I  ask,  what 
does  he  understand  by  the  word  baptism  here  ?  Is  it  the  Christian 
rite?  If  so,  this  rite  is  repentance  and  salvation.  If  it  is  not  the 
Christian  rite,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  it  in  this  controversy,  for  we 
are  inquiring  about  the  Christian  rite.  2.  John  did  not  preach  repent- 
ance as  a  baptism,  nor  baptism  as  a  repentance ;  but  baptism  as  imply- 
ing repentance.  He  preached  the  baptism  of  repentance.  This  shows 
that  baptism  and  repentance  are  different  things.  3.  How  do  baptism 
and  repentance  coincide?  It  must  be  in  a  sense  of  baptism — which 
excludes  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  otherwise  the  rite  is  a  part  of 
repentance.  If  it  is  in  a  sense  that  excludes  the  ordinance,  then  we  have 
nothing  to  do  with  it  in  that  sense :  our  inquiry  is  about  the  meaning 
of  the  word,  as  the  name  of  the  rite.     If  a  person  will  give  the  name 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  349 

of  baptism  to  repentance,  he  must  be  left  with  other  fanatics  to  enjoy  his 
own  whim.  4.  Repentance  may  be  imported  in  a  rite,  though  the  name 
of  the  ordinance  may  not  be  repentance.  5.  Repentance  and  purification 
are  not  the  same  thing,  though  they  are  essentially  connected.  If  bap- 
tism signifies  purification,  it  does  not  signify  repentance ;  if  it  signifies 
repentance,  it  cannot  signify  purification.  6.  With  much  better  reason 
it  might  be  said,  that  the  words  repentance  and  faith,  and  repentance 
and  sanctification,  coincide :  they  all  imply  each  other,  yet  they  are  all 
different.  But  the  word  repentance,  and  the  word  baptism,  do  not  coincide 
in  name,  and  they  do  not  necessarily  imply  each  other.  Repentance  may 
exist  without  baptism,  and  baptism  without  repentance. 

"  Repentance,"  says  the  writer,  "  is  not  a  dipping,  nor  an  immersion, 
but  it  is  a  purification."  The  words  dipping,  immersion,  purification, 
must  be  taken  as  the  names  of  the  rite,  otherwise  the  observation  is 
nothing  to  the  purpose.  Now  repentance  is  not  a  purification,  as 
that  term  is  the  name  of  a  rite,  more  than  it  is  immersion,  as  the  name 
of  the  same  rite.  "  The  phrase  baptisma  metanoias,"  says  he,  "  might 
mean  either  the  corporeal  baptism,  connected  with  repentance,  or  the 
spiritual  baptism,  consisting  of  repentance."  1.  The  phrase  baptism  of 
repentance,  most  evidently  means  the  rite  which  is  performed  on  those 
who  profess  repentance.  No  one  can  mistake  this,  who  looks  for  truth. 
But  if  any  one  will  be  ignorant,  let  him  be  ignorant.  The  baptisms 
under  the  law  were  for  ceremonial  purifications ;  but  the  baptism  of 
John,  and  of  our  Lord,  imply  spiritual  purification  in  those  who  receive 
them.  2.  The  writer  makes  repentance  and  spiritual  baptism  coincide; 
the  spiritual  baptism,  then,  of  repentance,  is  the  repentance  of  repentance. 
3.  This  exposition  excludes  the  rite  of  baptism  altogether  from  the 
preaching  of  John.  He  preached  only  repentance,  if  the  baptism  of 
repentance  is  nothing  but  repentance. 

But  even  granting  that  the  phrase  "  baptism  of  repentance"  has  no 
reference  to  baptism  as  a  rite,  does  this  imply  that  the  word  baptism,  in 
reference  to  the  rite,  must  signify  purification,  or  that  it  cannot  signify 
immersion  ?  This  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  in  any  point  of 
view.  "Apollos,"  he  tells  us,  "taught  diligently  the  things  of  the  Lord, 
being  acquainted  only  with  the  baptism  of  John.  If  only  acquainted 
with  the  dipping  of  John,  he  would  have  been  little  fitted  for  the  office 
of  a  religious  instructor."  Would  Apollos  have  been  a  more  competent 
religious  instructor,  on  the  supposition  that  the  rite  had  been  called  pu- 
rification ?  Is  it  not  evident  that  the  word  baptism  here  refers  to  the  rite 
of  baptism,  whatever  may  be  the  meaning  of  the  word?  But  the  writer, 
as  usual,  errs  from  inattention  to  the  effect  of  appropriation.  The  bap- 
tism of  John  includes  every  thing  included  in  John's  commission,  and 
implied  in  the  rite  which  he  practised.  Does  not  the  apostle  Paul  speak 
in  the  same  way  about  preaching  circumcision  1  The  baptism  of  John 
must  surely  be  the  baptism  which  John  preached.  The  rite,  then,  must 
be  referred  to,  whatever  may  be  its  name. 

Section  IX. — Author's  Explication  of  the  Passages  which  re- 
fer to  Christian  Baptism. — The  author  comes  next  to  the  examination 


350  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

of  the  passages  which  refer  to  Christian  baptism.  The  first  to  which  he 
refers  is  John  iii.  25, 26.  "  What  is  called  a  purifying  in  the  twenty-fifth 
verse,  is  called  a  baptizing  in  the  twenty-sixth  verse."  The  lesson  which 
I  gave  to  President  Beecher  on  this  allegation,  seems  to  have  had  its 
proper  effect  on  this  writer ;  for  he  grounds  no  argument  for  identity  of 
meaning  on  this  fact.  But  he  derives  evidence  from  the  passage  on  ano- 
ther ground.  "  Neither  in  this  passage,"  says  he,  "  nor  in  one  of  all  the 
passages  which  mention  Christian  baptism,  is  the  word  construed  with 
the  preposition  in,  or  with  any  other  word  that  accords  with  the  sense 
of  dipping.  In  no  single  instance  are  we  told  that  persons  were  baptized 
into  the  water,  which  would  be  the  proper  phrase,  if  to  baptize  meant  to 
dip.  The  word  is  here  used  alone,  and  as  many  other  passages,  both  the 
noun  and  verb  are  similarly  situated.  From  this,  it  is  probable  that  the 
object  signified  by  them  was  commonly  and  properly  regarded  alone,  and 
was  in  some  measure  complete  in  itself." 

It  is  to  me  astonishing,  beyond  what  I  can  express,  that  any  person 
accustomed  to  reflect  on  language,  were  he  even  unable  to  read,  should 
make  the  observation  with  regard  to  the  defect  of  the  regimen  of  the 
verb.  Every  ear  is  familiarly  accustomed  to  such  grammatical  deficiency 
of  expression ;  and  every  hearer  and  reader  can  instantaneously  supply 
the  ellipsis :  it  is  a  common  case  with  all  grammatical  appropriations. 
The  expression  of  the  regimen  would  be  quite  useless.  I  have  already, 
again  and  again,  illustrated  this  by  examples ;  and  every  hour's  con- 
versation will  supply  instances.  Can  we  not  say,  "Was  the  child 
sprinkled  ?"  Can  we  not  say,  "  Was  such  a  person  immersed  V  Would 
any  child  need  the  regimen  to  be  expressed?  Try  the  experiment  on 
an  idiot,  and  I  venture  to  say,  he  will  not  ask  for  the  regimen  of  the 
verb.  Critics  should  be  ashamed  of  having  recourse  to  such  philology. 
Is  it  not  strange  that  the  ghost  of  our  old  friend,  the  word  circumcision, 
does  not  rise  up  to  their  imagination,  and  frighten  them,  when  they 
make  such  observations?  Should  a  modern  Jew  be  asked  if  he  was 
circumcised ;  would  he  need  the  grammatical  regimen  to  be  expressed, 
before  he  would  answer  ?  It  might  as  well  be  said  that  the  English 
word  immerse  cannot  signify  dip,  because  it  is  used  in  reference  to 
the  ordinance,  without  any  regimen.  Let  us  try  this  criticism  on  a 
sample  of  English.  Let  the  critic  be  a  foreigner,  knowing  the  English 
language  through  grammars  and  dictionaries,  and  determining  meaning 
according  to  the  canons  of  this  writer.  Let  the  text  be,  Were  you 
immersed  since  you  believed  ?  "  Nothing,"  says  the  critic,  "  can  be  more 
evident  than  that  the  word  immerse  cannot  here  signify  dip,  because 
there  is  no  regimen  to  the  verb."  With  respect  to  the  preposition  eis, 
I  have  shown  that  it  is  construed  with  the  verb,  with  respect  to  John's 
baptism ;  and  in  this  respect  there  can  be  no  difference  between  the 
word  in  reference  to  the  baptism  of  John,  and  that  of  Christ.  Besides, 
it  is  used  by  the  early  Christians,  which  is  as  good  an  authority  as  to 
syntax,  as  is  the  Scripture  itself.  Inspiration  does  not  give  law  to 
syntax,  but  must  use  the  syntax  of  the  language  which  it  employs ; 
otherwise  it  could  not  give  a  revelation.  Besides,  en  is  construed  with 
the  verb,  as  well  as  eis,  when  immerse  is  spoken  of;  and  in  English, 


REPLY   TO   THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  351 

we  use  in  much  more  frequently  than  into.  Indeed,  when  we  wish 
merely  to  designate  the  place  of  baptism,  we  always  use  in. — They  were 
baptized  in  the  Thames.  I  might  add,  that  the  preposition  eis  is  in  the 
Scriptures  construed  with  the  verb,  in  reference  to  Christian  baptism ; 
and  as  to  the  syntax,  there  is  no  difference  whether  the  regimen  be 
water,  or  anything  else.  But  I  do  not  recognise  the  demand ;  I  will  not 
plead  on  the  ground  of  its  authority.  A  phrase  might  occur  only  once 
in  Scripture ;  and  on  the  ground  of  the  author's  criticism,  it  could  not 
have  its  common  meaning,  without  alleging  at  least  one  instance  of 
every  variety  of  its  syntax.  I  denounce  this  canon  as  unsound  and 
unauthoritative. 

But  what  does  the  writer  mean,  when  he  says  that  the  object  signified, 
is  regarded  alone  and  complete  in  itself?  Must  not  e-very  active  verb 
have  a  regimen,  either  expressed  or  understood  ?  Purify  must  have  its 
regimen,  as  well  as  immerse :  the  thing  or  means  used  to  effect  purification 
must  be  supplied,  either  in  expression  or  by  ellipsis.  He  says,  indeed, 
"  the  term  to  purify,  exhibits  a  particular  end,  on  which  the  mind 
naturally  rests,  and  from  which  accessory  ideas  are  fitly  removed."  It 
expresses  purification ;  but  it  expresses  neither  the  end  nor  the  means  of 
purification,  more  than  does  immerse.  Whether  the  purification  is  for 
the  end  of  natural,  emblematical,  or  spiritual  cleansing ;  and  whether  by 
means  of  water,  or  fire,  or  sulphur,  or  anything  else,  deponent  saith  not. 

"  The  term  to  dip,"  says  he,  "  exhibits  a  general  mode  of  acting,  and 
could  not  so  well  be  used  alone."  Here,  again,  he  overlooks  the  effect 
of  the  principle  of  grammatical  appropriation.  Either  immersion  or 
sprinkling  could  be  used  alone  in  appropriation,  as  freely  as  purification. 
The  Baptists  can  use  the  word  immerse  in  this  way ;  though  from  the  usual 
custom  of  speaking  of  this  ordinance,  under  the  name  baptism,  the  word 
immerse  is  more  seldom  used  in  an  appropriated  way.  The  harshness 
and  abruptness  which  the  author  fancies,  arise  solely  from  the  want  of 
constant  appropriation.  It  is  really  irksome  beyond  expression,  to  be 
obliged  to  notice  reasoning  so  totally  without  application.  When  there 
is  a  real  difficulty  presented  to  us,  the  mind  rouses  to  exertion ;  and 
from  the  pleasure  of  discovery,  is  insensible  of  fatigue.  But  to  be  obliged 
to  reply  to  arguments  which  have  not  even  plausibility  to  recommend 
them,  is  an  intolerable  grievance. 

"  It  may  be  asked,"  says  the  writer,  "  Why  was  baptizo  ever  used,  if 
Icatharizo  would  express  the  same  meaning?  We  reply,  that  though 
they  both  convey  the  sense  of  purifying,  they  do  not  exactly  agree  in 
signification.  We  have  no  English  words  corresponding  to  the  various 
Greek  words,  agiazo,  baptizo,  Icatharizo,  rantizo,  &,c,  because  we  have 
not  rites  of  purification  corresponding  to  the  various  rites  to  which  these 
words  were  applied;  and  they  may  all,  in  some  cases,  be  translated  by 
the  one  word  purify.  While  from  the  passages  examined,  it  appears 
that  baptizo  does  mean  to  purify,  it  also  appears  that  when  used  in  refer- 
ence to  the  body,  it  is  applied  especially  to  the  more  solemn  purifications, 
by  means  of  water ;  and  we  shall  find  that  in  its  application  to  mind,  it 
has  a  corresponding  intensity  of  meaning." 

The  writer  here  endeavours  to  avoid  the  absurdity  of  the  view  of 


352  REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE. 

President  Beecher,  who  makes  baptizo  and  hatliarizo  identical.     But  he 
has  plunged  into  numerous  absurdities  to  avoid  one. 

1.  Nothing  here  alleged  unfits  hatliarizo  from  being  applied  to  desig- 
nate the  ordinance,  if  it  was  designed  to  name  it  by  a  word  signifying 
purification.  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  peculiarities  of  purification 
should  be  specified  in  the  name  of  a  rite  of  purification.  The  water  of 
purification  was  of  a  peculiar  kind;  yet  the  term  purification  designates 
it.  If  the  ordinance  is  called  sprinkling,  it  is  a  sprinkling  of  water,  not 
of  blood ;  yet  sprinkling  applies  to  every  fluid  equally.  If  immersion  is 
the  name  of  the  ordinance,  it  is  immersion  in  water ;  yet  immersion 
equally  applies  to  all  substances  in  which  anything  can  be  dipped.  I 
still  ask,  then,  why  was  not  hatliarizo  employed,  if  the  name  of  the 
ordinance  is  to  express  purification? 

2.  Does  not  the  writer  call  the  ordinance  purification?  Yet  the  term 
purify  is  as  general  as  hatliarizo.  If  in  English,  a  purification  of  a  par- 
ticular kind  is  named  by  the  general  word  purification,  why  may  not  the 
same  thing  be  done  in  Greek  ?  There  is  not  the  smallest  apology  for 
baptizo,  to  thrust  itself  into  office ;  nor  is  there  the  least  ground  for  its 
adoption  on  any  occasion  of  the  meaning  purification.  Its  services  can 
never  be  required. 

3.  We  have  English  words  to  represent  the  Greek  words  specified. 

4.  The  ground  on  which  it  is  asserted,  that  we  have  no  words  to 
translate  the  words  specified,  is  unsound.  Similarity  of  rites  in  two 
languages,  is  not  necessary  to  translate  all  words  employed  in  one  of 
them,  to  designate  religious  rites.  The  word  rantizo  could  be  trans- 
lated equally  well  into  our  language,  if  there  never  had  been  a  sprinkling 
rite  in  use  amongst  us. 

5.  The  words  specified,  are  not  always  applied  in  Greek  to  religious 
rites.  Why  then  should  similar  religious  rites  be  necessary  to  trans- 
late them  ? 

6.  So  far  from  its  being  true,  that  all  the  specified  words  may  be, 
in  some  cases,  translated  by  the  one  word  purify,  not  one  of  them,  but 
two  can,  in  any  case,  be  translated  by  the  word  purify.  Rantizo  cannot 
be  translated  purify,  though  purification  is  effected  by  sprinkling.  The 
phrase  sprinkling  of  the  conscience,  is  not  translated  by  purification  of  the 
conscience.  This  might  give  the  general  meaning,  but  it  would  not 
translate  the  original.  The  Holy  Spirit,  by  this  phraseology,  designs  not 
only  to  designate  the  purification  of  the  conscience,  but  to  show  us  that  the 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice  was  emblematical  of  this.  A  version 
that  would  here  substitute  purification  for  sprinkling,  I  would  renounce, 
as  inadequate  and  corrupt.  I  say  the  same  thing  with  respect  to  agiazo 
— it  never  is  purify.     Holiness  and  purification  are  quite  different  ideas. 

7.  Even  when  there  is  a  rite  in  the  language  of  the  original,  without 
any  similar  rite  in  the  language  of  the  translation,  the  words  that  desig- 
nate the  rite,  are  capable  of  translation,  as  far  as  the  language  of  the  rite 
employs  words  that  also  apply  to  common  actions. 

8.  And  in  all  such  cases  the  common  words  of  the  translation  are  as 
capable  of  assuming  an  appropriated  meaning  as  the  original  itself.  The 
word  passover,  is  as  much  appropriated  in  English  as  is  the  word  in  the 


REPLY   TO   THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE.  353 

original.  The  word  circumcision  has  received  a  similar  appropriation ; 
yet  we  have  no  similar  rite.  In  like  manner  sprinkling,  and  perfusion , 
and  immersion,  may  be  applied  to  the  ordinance,  according  to  different 
views  of  the  import  of  its  name.  Though  from  the  more  common 
usage  employed  by  all  parties,  of  speaking  of  the  rite  by  the  name  bap- 
tism, the  other  terms  are  less  used  in  an  appropriated  way;  yet  they  are 
occasionally  used  both  with  propriety  and  perspicuity.  A  religious  rite 
of  immersion  previously  existing,  is  not  necessary  in  order  to  translate 
the  word  which  signifies  immersion  in  the  original.  Immersion  itself  is 
known  to  all  nations,  though  some  of  them  may  have  no  religious  im- 
mersion previously  to  the  introduction  of  Christianity. 

9.  The  Greek  word  specified  by  the  writer,  and  words  in  general, 
have  the  same  meaning,  when  applied  to  religious  rites,  that  they  have 
when  applied  to  common  things.  It  is  from  their  meaning  as  applied 
to  common  things,  that  they  are  fitted  to  apply  to  religious  rites.  The 
writer,  with  many  others,  seems  to  think  that  when  a  word  is  applied  to 
a  sacred  rite,  it  must,  itself  become  sacred.  This  is  philological  Pusey- 
ism.  A  word  may  apply  to  common  and  sacred  things  perfectly  in  the 
same  meaning.  The  word  sprinkle  has  the  same  meaning  when  applied 
to  the  sprinkling  of  the  streets  to  lay  the  dust,  as  when  applied  to  sprink- 
ling with  holy  water. 

10.  Even  had  katharismos  itself  been  used  as  the  designation  of  this 
rite,  immersion  might  have  been  its  mode,  for  an  emblematical  purpose. 
In  this  sense  it  is  explained  in  the  Scriptures. 

11.  The  author  tells  us  that  we  have  no  word  corresponding  to 
katharizo.     Will  he  tell  us  in  what  respect  purify  fails  ? 

12.  When  baptizo  is  Used  in  reference  to  the  body,  it  applies  to  other 
purposes  as  well  as  ritual  purification.  Aristobulus  was  drowned  by  it, 
and  Naaman  was  bathed  by  it. 

13.  When  baptizo  is  used  in  reference  to  the  body,  it  applies  to  other 
things  as  well  as  to  water.  Nothing  was  more  common  than  to  speak 
of  a  baptism  in  blood.  It  is  quite  different  as  to  the  means  which  it 
employs,  provided  it  can  penetrate. 

14.  In  reference  to  ritual  purification,  it  applies  to  every  thing  as  well 
as  to  body.  It  was  applied  to  the  pots  and  cups  and  vessels  of  the  kitchen, 
as  well  as  to  the  persons  of  the  Pharisees. 

15.  It  applies  to  common  washing  as  well  as  to  sacred  washing.  It 
is  altogether,  in  reference  to  cleansing,  as  general  in  its  application  as  is 
katharizo,  though  it  does  not  itself  in  any  instance  signify  to  cleanse . 
while  it  equally  refers  to  defiling  as  to  cleansing. 

16.  The  applications  of  the  word  in  reference  to  mind  are  all  figura- 
tive. In  such  instances  the  word  has  always  its  proper  meaning ;  and 
they  are  all  not  only  in  perfect  harmony  with  our  view,  but  many  of 
them  absolutely  require  it. 

17.  It  is  absurd  to  speak  of  the  word  as  having  a  different  meaning 
in  reference  to  the  body,  from  what  it  has  in  reference  to  other  things. 

18.  It  is  equally  erroneous  to  speak  of  a  word  as  being  used  with  dif- 
ferent degrees  of  intensity,  though  some  hermeneutical  writers  employ 
this  distinction  in  their  laws  of  exegesis. 

45 


354  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

19.  The  author  seems  to  think  that  a  word  derives  a  portion  of  its 
meaning  from  its  situation  with  respect  to  other  words.  Connexion  may 
sometimes  be  absolutely  necessary  to  determine  which  of  two  or  more 
meanings  is  the  meaning  in  the  passage ;  but  connexion  never  bestows 
a  particle  of  meaning. 

20.  By  the  hypothesis  of  our  opponents,  this  word,  from  the  fact  that 
immersion  was  so  much  used  for  cleansing,  came  at  length  to  signify 
cleansing,  as  the  parent  word  came  to  signify  dyeing.  Had  this  been 
the  case,  washing,  not  purification  in  general,  would  have  been  the  se- 
condary meaning.  Purification  has  no  pretensions  to  competition  on 
any  ground  whatever. 

With  respect  to  John  iv.  1,  2,  the  author  says,  "  Remarks  similar  to 
those  already  made,  may  be  repeated  here.  The  verb  has  not  the 
context  appropriate  to  the  sense  of  dipping."  And  to  these  similar  obser- 
vations I  give  the  same  answer ;  they  are  founded  on  the  same  inat- 
tention to  the  effect  of  grammatical  appropriation,  that  meets  us  every 
where  in  this  writer.  Even  had  the  word  katharizo  itself  been  used,  it 
must  be  supplied  with  its  regimen  by  ellipsis.  The  thing  with  which  a 
purification  is  performed,  is  as  necessary  as  the  thing  in  which  an  im- 
mersion takes  place.  When  the  Lord's  supper  is  designated  by  the 
phrase  breaking  bread,  there  is  a  perfectly  similar  ellipsis :  the  eating 
of  the  bread  for  a  particular  purpose,  and  the  drinking  of  the  wine  for 
a  particular  purpose,  are  to  be  supplied  elliptically.  How  could  the 
writer  overlook  facts  so  glaringly  conspicuous,  and  so  decidedly  opposed 
to  his  doctrine ! 

The  author  next  refers  to  the  supposed  improbability  of  immersion 
with  respect  to  the  three  thousand  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
Had  it  been  related  in  the  word  of  God  that  every  man  and  woman  in 
Jerusalem  were  baptized  on  the  same  day,  it  would  not,  in  the  estima- 
tion of  any  sound  and  candid  mind,  form  the  slightest  objection  to  the 
meaning  of  this  word  as  immersion.  There  could  be  no  difficulty  in  the 
business.  Comparatively  few  of  the  Jews,  either  from  the  requirements 
of  the  law  of  Moses,  or  the  traditions  of  the  elders,  could  be  a  single  day 
without  immersion.  But  even  without  reference  to  this  point,  that  the 
thing  alleged  Acts  ii.  38,  41,  was  practicable,  is  sufficiently  attested  by 
the  fact  that  it  was  practised.  What  that  thing  is,  must  be  learned  from 
the  testimony  of  the  word  employed  to  convey  the  testimony,  ascertained 
by  its  occurrence  in  the  language.  I  will  not  suffer  my  opponents  to 
call  on  me  to  gauge  the  fountains  and  ponds  that  were  in  Jerusalem 
eighteen  centuries  back.  Whether  they  used  baths  or  cisterns,  is  quite 
alike  to  me :  the  word  provides  every  thing  necessary  for  me.  They 
must  have  been  immersed,  for  the  word  has  no  other  meaning.  Should 
an  English  traveller  inform  us  that  in  a  very  distant  country,  on  a  cer- 
tain great  festival,  there  were  three  thousand  persons  immersed  in  obser- 
vance of  a  religious  custom,  should  we  either  refuse  to  believe  him,  or 
explain  the  word  immerse  in  the  sense  of  purification  by  sprinkling? 
Why  then  do  we  find  a  difficulty  in  regard  to  three  thousand  Jews,  who 
were  as  familiar  with  the  water  as  water  fowls? 

In  Acts  viii.  12,  13,  1G,  he  brings  the  same  complaint  as  to  the 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  355 

regimen,  which  surely  I  have  answered  often  enough.  He  thinks  it  very 
improbable,  also,  that  the  great  number  of  believers  on  that  occasion 
should  be  immersed.  Especially  he  is  overwhelmed  with  astonishment 
that,  if  they  were  immersed,  there  should  be  no  account  of  the  inquiries 
of  the  Gentiles  about  the  new  rite.  Does  the  author  really  expect  a 
detail  of  every  thing  that  happened  on  such  occasions  ?  What  sort  of  a 
book  would  the  Bible  be,  had  it  been  formed  on  this  gossiping  principle  ? 
But  from  the  conduct  of  Philip  in  preaching  to  the  eunuch,  we  may  learn 
that  the  new  rite  would  be  sufficiently  explained,  both  to  Jews  and 
Gentiles. 

The  author  thinks  that  immersed  into  the  name  of  Christ,  is  unsuitable 
phraseology.  The  Baptists,  and  millions  of  others,  have  found  this 
phraseology  very  intelligible  and  edifying.  But  does  not  the  author  per- 
ceive that,  except  he  has  taken  out  a  patent  for  his  translation  of  eis  in 
this  place,  we  can  have  the  benefit  of  it?  We  may  be  immersed  for  the 
name  of  Jesus,  as  well  as  he  can  be  purified  for  it.  I  reject  this  trans- 
lation, however,  though  it  is  no  part  of  my  duty  to  refute  it. 

With  respect  to  Acts  viii.  38, 1  have  already  shown  that  ek  is  decisive 
evidence  that  Philip  and  the  eunuch  were  in  the  water.  It  never,  in  a 
single  instance,  designates  merely  from;  it  is  always  out  of 

I  admit  that  eis  means  unto  as  well  as  into.  I  will  not  take  a  particle 
of  evidence  from  a  word  but  what  it  legitimately  contains.  I  write  not 
for  a  party,  but  for  the  people  of  God  without  exception — not  for  the 
praise  of  reviewers,  but  for  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ.  But  while 
I  admit  this  variety  of  meaning  in  this  preposition,  I  will  not  give  up  its 
testimony  in  this  place.  A  word  that  has  two  meanings  may  be  definitely 
ascertained,  and  all  good  composition  must  afford  evidence  to  ascertain 
it,  where  it  is  used.  That  eis  hudor  here  is  not  unto  the  water,  but  into 
the  water,  appears  evident  from  the  fact,  that  the  persons  to  whom  the 
fact  refers,  are  previously  brought  to  the  water  by  another  verb  and 
another  preposition.  Epi  is  the  preposition  that  gives  them  their  station 
at  the  water.  When,  then,  after  coming  to  the  water,  they  are  said  both 
to  go  down  eis  hudor,  what  can  it  be  but  into  the  water  ?  Let  this  be 
coupled  with  the  fact  which  our  opponents  themselves  cannot  deny,  that 
immersion  is  frequently  the  meaning  of  the  verb  which  designates  the 
action  which  they  are  about  to  perform.  Let  the  testimony  of  ek,  which 
I  have  shown  never  wavers,  and  which  this  writer  himself  must  admit 
to  be  its  usual  meaning,  be  viewed  in  combination  with  all  this,  and 
what  doubt  can  remain  on  the  mind  of  any  man  who  really  wishes  to 
come  at  truth  on  the  subject  ? 

"  If  it  were  stated,"  says  the  author,  "  that  both  these  persons  went 
into  the  water,  this  would  be  very  different  from  the  statement  that  one 
dipped  the  other  into  the  water." 

These  two  statements  are  indeed  very  different,  but  it  must  be  obvious 
to  any  child  that  the  first  was  in  order  to  effect  the  last.  Can  any  man 
think  that  they  would  go  both  into  the  water,  when  a  few  drops  would 
serve  in  any  place?  Every  candid  mind  must  see  that  going  into  the 
water  was  here  necessary  for  the  performance  of  baptism.  Such 
obstinacy  can  never  be  cured  by  argument.     Were  this  a  matter  of 


356  REPLY    TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE. 

heathen  antiquity,  is  there  a  man  in  existence,  who  would  question  the 
meaning  ? 

With  respect  to  Acts  ix.  18;  xxii.  16,  the  author  thinks  that  Paul 
being  a  sick  man,  it  is  not  probable  that  he  was  immersed.  I  see  nothing 
in  Paul's  case  to  prevent  his  immediate  immersion  :  I  consider  such 
reasoning  as  the  most  egregious  trifling.  Can  anything  be  more  unrea- 
sonable than  to  attempt  to  evade  the  established  meaning  of  a  word,  and 
confer  on  it  a  meaning  that  cannot  plead  the  authority  of  a  single 
example,  on  the  pretence  of  such  improbabilities?  I  object  to  this,  not 
merely  as  it  affects  the  point  in  question,  but  as  it  establishes  a  false 
principle  of  interpretation. 

If  a  similar  document  came  from  the  Baptist  missionaries  in  any  very 
distant  country,  would  there  be  any  hesitation  as  to  the  meaning? 
Would  any  one  allege  that  it  was  probable  that  sprinkling  was  used 
instead  of  immersion,  or  that  the  word  immersion  signifies  sprinkling  or 
purification  ?  Were  we  to  admit,  as  a  canon  of  interpretation,  that 
difficulties  and  views  of  probability  ought  to  set  aside  the  usual  meaning 
of  words,  and  give  them  meanings  for  which  there  is  no  other  sanction, 
what  facts  in  history  could  stand  their  ground  ?  Every  fanatic,  every 
religionist,  every  heretic,  would  give  words  whatever  meaning  they 
pleased.  In  all  cases  of  contested  meaning,  we  must  proceed  on  the 
authority  of  ascertained  examples,  Without  any  deference  to  the  authority 
of  previous  probability.  If  Paul  was  baptized  in  a  state  of  exhaustion, 
before  partaking  of  refreshment,  we  are  not  from  this  to  deny  the 
meaning  of  the  word,  but  to  learn  that  baptism  ought  to  be  attended 
to  immediately  on  believing.  It  is  connected  with  the  faith  that  saves 
the  soul,  and  ought  as  closely  as  possible  to  be  connected  with  it  in 
practice. 

"  It  was  either  performed,"  says  he,  "  while  the  person  stood  up,  or  it 
so  quickly  followed  his  rising  from  a  couch,  that  it  might  be  said,  He 
rising  up  was  baptized." 

I  care  not  that  it  was  expressly  said  that  he  was  baptized  in  the  very 
room  where  he  was  then  sitting,  immediately  after  the  address  of  Ananias. 
This  woidd  not  create  the  smallest  difficulty.  Yet  I  am  utterly  astonished 
that  a  literary  man  should  interpret  such  forms  of  expression  in  this 
manner.  They  are  quite  consistent  with  the  supposition  that  some  time 
might  intervene  between  the  command  and  the  execution ;  and  at  some 
distance  from  the  place.  When  Ulysses  returned  to  the  ship  with  a 
stag,  throwing  it  from  his  shoulders,  he  called  on  his  hungry  companions, 
saying,  Rise  and  eat.  Yet  the  stag  must  be  skinned,  spitted,  and  cooked, 
before  it  was  eaten ;  and  it  was  eaten  in  a  different  place  from  that  in 
which  the  address  was  made.  In  the  Battle  of  the  Frogs  and  Mice,  the 
herald  that  proclaimed  war  against  the  frogs,  says : — 

"  Leaders  of  the  host  of  frogs,  put  on 
Your  armour,  and  draw  forth  your  bands  to  battle!" 

The  frogs  were  now  in  council,  and  some  time  must  intervene  before 
the  bands  could  be  led  forth.  God  says  to  Moses,  "Rise  up  early  in  the 
morning,  and  stand  before  Pharaoh."     There  was  some  time  before  his 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  357 

rising  and  his  standing  before  the  king ;  and  some  space  between  the 
place  where  he  rose  and  where  he  afterwards  stood.  "  Now  rise  up, 
said  I,  and  get  you  over  the  brook  Zered."  There  was  some  time  be- 
tween the  command  and  the  performance  of  the  thing  commanded;  and 
some  space  between  the  place  of  rising  and  the  place  where  they  were 
commanded  to  go.  "  Rise,  go  up,  take  your  journey,  and  pass  over  the 
river  Arnon,"  &c.  &c. 

The  author  tells  us  that  the  word  has  here  "  that  connexion  with  terms 
of  religion  which  favours  the  supposition  that  it  had  a  sacred  meaning, 
such  as  to  purify,  and  not  a  common  meaning,  such  as  to  dip, — "  Dip 
and  cleanse  away  thy  sins,  invoking  his  name."  Upon  this  I  remark : — 
1.  What  does  he  mean  by  terms  of  religion?  Does  he  mean  words  that 
are  used  in  religion  only  ?  There  are  no  such  terms  here.  All  the  words 
referred  to  are  used  in  common  as  well  as  in  sacred  things.  Does  he 
mean  words  tliat  are  often  used  in  religion  ?  Any  word  may  be  used 
with  respect  to  religion  when  its  meaning  is  suitable.  2.  Do  we  not  find 
a  similar  connexion  with  respect  to  the  words  wash,  cleanse,  sprinkle  ? 
yet  they  are  common  words.  3.  A  word  does  not  become  a  religious 
word  by  being  applied  to  religion ;  to  icash,  to  cleanse,  to  purify,  are 
common  words.  A  common  word  may  apply  to  a  sacred  object  without 
becoming  sacred.  The  hog  and  the  devotee  are  cleansed  by  the  same 
word.  4.  If  immersion,  as  a  mode,  is  employed  by  God  to  designate  a 
rite,  is  it  not  as  holy  as  any  word  in  the  language?  I  make  no  such 
objection  to  sprinkling  or  pouring,  as  the  appointed  mode  of  this  ordi- 
nance. 5.  What  are  the  consecrated  terms  with  which  baptizo  is  here 
associated  ?  The  first  of  them  is  wash  aioay.  Is  louo  a  consecrated 
word  ?  Invoking — the  word  calls  on  man  as  well  as  on  God.  6.  The 
word  is  indeed  associated  here  with  a  word  that  determines  its  meaning. 
It  is  coupled  with  louo,  to  bathe,  which  always  respects  the  person  in 
general  when  no  part  is  named. 

"  The  additional  clause,  cleanse  away  thy  sins,"  says  he,  "  is  to  be 
regarded  as  additional  in  sense,  and  not  as  merely  explanatory.  Baptize 
is  the  first  injunction ;  Cleanse  away  thy  sins,  that  is,  repent,  is  the 
second ;  Become  a  worshipper  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  the  third." 

This  is  a  very  pure  specimen  of  Puseyism.  It  is  incontrovertibly  evi- 
dent that  the  command,  "Wash  away  thy  sins,"  respects  what  was  to 
take  place  in  baptism.  If  then  it  was  not  symbolical  washing,  it  must 
be  Puseyite  regeneration.  It  is  equally  evident  that  this  washing  is  per- 
formed by  the  rite  itself,  and  not  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  the  command 
about  it  is  given  to  Paul.  There  is  a  place  in  the  north  of  Ireland, 
called  the  Holestone,  named  from  a  certain  stone  with  a  hole  in  it  suffi- 
cient, with  difficulty,  to  allow  a  man  to  pass  through  it.  In  ancient 
times,  it  is  said,  that  there  was  a  ceremony  of  passing  through  this  hole 
by  which  persons  were  born  again.  Now  I  think  it  might  be  expedient 
to  revive  this  ceremony ;  for  I  cannot  perceive  any  respect  in  which  the 
Holestone  regeneration  is  inferior  to  baptismal  regeneration. 

This  theology  is  very  different  from  that  of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles. 
It  commanded  them  to  make  men  disciples,  and  then  to  baptize  them  ; 
and  they  said,  Repent  and  be  baptized,  or,  Believe  and  be  baptized. 


358  REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

Where  does  the  writer  learn  that  cleanse  away  sins  and  repent  arc  the 
same  ?  They  are  always  connected,  but  they  are  perfectly  different.  Re- 
pentance is  the  duty  of  man  ;  washing  away  of  sins  is  solely  the  work  of 
the  Spirit.  Paul  had  already  repented  ;  his  sins  also  were  already  washed 
away.  In  baptism  this  was  to  be  exhibited  in  a  symbolical  washing. 
Paul  had  already  become  a  worshipper  of  the  Lord  Jesus;  he  had  pre- 
viously called  on  the  Lord  Jesus.  Why  is  it  supposed  that  this  was  the 
first  time  in  which  he  called  on  him? 

But  the  author  is  not  contented  with  making  cleanse  away  sins  to  be 
repent.  By  a  second  process  in  the  manufacture,  he  converts  it  into 
"let  there  be  in  your  heart  that  purity  which,  commencing  with  repent- 
ance, is  by  regeneration  perfected  in  those  that  trust  in  the  Lord  Jesus," 
&c.    What  a  bright  specimen  of  theology ! 

On  Acts  x.  47,  48,  the  author  remarks,  "  The  word  here  used  in 
connexion  with  water  is,  in  the  New  Testament,  always  construed 
with  the  object  whose  action  or  movement  to  any  place  is  hindered  or 
forbidden." 

Profound  philology !  This  surely  will  settle  the  question.  What  can 
stand  against  such  a  battery  of  metaphysics?  But  let  us  examine  it, 
and  we  shall  find  that  it  is  metaphysical  only  in  form,  and  profound  only 
to  those  who  have  not  a  rule  to  dip  it.  I  remark,  then,  1.  Were  it  per- 
fectly correct,  it  is  quite  consonant  with  immersion.  I  have  no  objec- 
tion at  all,  that  the  water  should  be  brought  into  the  room.  I  have  no 
doubt  that,  whatever  may  have  been  the  case  on  this  occasion,  the  thing 
was  often  practised.  2.  There  is  here  no  movement  of  the  water  ex- 
pressed, nor  does  the  verb  require  movement  at  all.  It  is  frequently 
used  when  there  is  no  motion  of  an  object  from  one  place  to  another 
3.  It  is  not  philosophical,  but  absurd,  to  speak  of  action  here  with 
respect  to  the  water.  Water  is  not  considered  as  an  agent,  but  as  the 
thing  employed  by  the  agents.  4.  In  whatever  way  the  phrase  forbid 
water,  is  understood,  no  person  can  suppose  that  the  command  is  given 
to  the  water,  and  that  it  was  the  water  that  was  forbidden  to  come  into 
the  room.  If  the  prohibition  respects  the  bringing  of  water  into  the 
room,  it  must  be  directed  to  the  persons,  and  not  to  the  water.  This  is 
as  necessary  in  the  sense  of  the  phrase,  according  to  this  writer,  as  it  is 
in  ours.  5.  The  writer  says,  "  It  is  most  properly  employed,  if  the 
water  for  baptism  was  brought  into  the  room  in  which  the  persons  were." 
Granting  this  for  a  moment,  what  is  the  ellipsis  ?  Would  it  not  be : 
"  Who  can  forbid  water  to  be  brought  into  the  room  ?"  Now  is  not  a 
like  ellipsis  warrantable  on  our  side?  Who  can  forbid  water  to  be 
brought  for  immersing  these  persons  ?  6.  The  conversation  of  every  day 
exemplifies  the  phrase  in  our  meaning.  The  physician  forbids  wine, 
&c.  &c.  Does  not  this  mean,  he  forbids  the  invalid  the  use  of  wine  ? 
7.  Forbid  water  has  not,  even  to  a  child,  the  appearance  of  relation  to 
the  question  whether  water  was  to  be  brought,  or  they  were  to  go  to  the 
water.  Common  sense  at  once  declares  the  meaning  to  be,  Wlw  can 
forbid  baptism  1  Who  can  forbid  the  external  rite,  when  the  thing  of 
which  it  is  an  emblem,  is  verified?  If  they  have  received  the  Spirit,  what 
ordinance  should  be  denied  them  ?     8.  We  have  in  Luke  vi.  29,  the  very 


REPLY   TO   THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  359 

same  word  similarly  construed.  "  Forbid  not  the  coat."  Was  this  com- 
mand to  the  coat?  Was  it  the  action  or  the  movement  of  the  coat  that 
was  forbidden?  Can  we  not  ourselves  say,  can  any  forbid  the  Lord's 
supper?  The  phraseology  of  this  passage  will  equally  suit  every  mode 
of  this  ordinance,  and  any  ordinance  that  employs  water. 

With  respect  to  Acts  xvi.  15, 1  certainly  can  have  no  objection  to  the 
opinion  of  the  writer,  that  Lydia  was  baptized  in  the  place  where  Paul 
preached :  the  sooner  the  better.  As  to  her  dress,  and  anything  that 
is  not  matter  of  Divine  prescription,  I  leave  to  the  descretion  of  those 
concerned  on  the  occasion.  I  shall  neither  be  the  master  of  the  cere- 
monies myself,  nor  allow  my  opponent  to  undertake  that  service.  The 
author,  as  usual,  complains  of  the  want  of  regimen.  It  cannot  be 
necessary  for  me  to  return  to  this  subject.  He  tells  us  that  "  It  cannot 
be  inferred  from  the  mention  of  the  river,  that  a  large  quantity  of  water 
was  necessary  for  Christian  baptism."  I  admit  this  most  fully,  and  most 
cheerfully.  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  river  would  have  been  in  that 
place,  and  that  it  would  have  contained  as  much  water,  had  sprinkling 
been  the  mode  of  the  ordinance  of  Christ.  But  the  writer  forgets  that 
this  is  the  very  kind  of  proof  the  burden  of  which  he  demands  from  us. 
Does  he  forget  that  he  calls  on  us  to  gauge  the  fountain  of  Bethulia  ? 
I  shall  take  on  me  no  such  burden.  When  a  word  requires  water,  it 
must  have  it,  wherever  it  may  find  it.  Had  Lydia  been  said  to  be  bap- 
tized on  the  spot  where  she  believed,  without  the  mention  of  fountain 
or  river,  I  should  have  perfectly  the  same  confidence  in  the  mode  of  her 
baptism.  Little  value,  however,  as  the  writer  sets  upon  the  river  here, 
had  Lydia  been  said  to  be  baptized  in  the  place  where  Paul  preached, 
without  any  evidence  that  a  river  or  fountain  was  near,  I  am  fully  con- 
vinced he  would  have  loudly  complained  of  want  of  water.  Still  the 
river  would  have  been  there. 

Taking  it  for  granted,  then,  that  she  was  baptized  at  the  river,  and 
that  her  house,  as  the  author  seems  to  think,  was  in  the  city,  does  not 
the  phraseology  annihilate  the  distance  as  much  as  that  in  Acts  x.  ? 
When  she  was  baptized  she  said,  "Come  into  my  house,  and  abide;" 
or,  "  Having  entered  into  my  house,  abide."  Similar  phraseology  occurs 
in  verse  40,  "  They  went  out  of  prison,  and  entered  into  the  house  of 
Lydia."  Here  the  time  and  distance,  according  to  this  writer,  are 
annihilated. 

Let  the  unlearned  reader  here  take  notice,  that  the  place  of  preaching 
is  said  to  be  para,  at,  or  near  the  river — not  en,  in  the  river,  as  it  might 
be,  according  to  the  criticism  of  our  author. 

The  author  comes  next  to  the  baptism  of  the  jailer.  He  usually 
translates  for  himself,  as  if  the  common  version  were  in  every  thing 
wrong.  I  am  not  to  be  supposed  as  approving  his  version,  as  often  as  I 
pass  it  without  censure.  I  notice  no  errors,  but  such  as  concern  the 
point  in  hand.  What  our  version  calls  "  washed  their  stripes,"  he  trans- 
lates, "  made  them  clean  from  their  wounds."  The  author's  translation 
is  inferior,  both  in  elegance  and  in  correctness.  The  original  is  stripes, 
not  wounds :  the  term  wounds  is  too  generic.  The  original  is  bathed, 
not  made  clean :  the  latter  is  generic,  the  former  is  specific.     Bathing, 


360  REPLT   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL   MAGAZINE. 

and  making  clean,  are  not  equivalent.  Homer  represents  Jupiter  as 
giving  directions  to  Apollo,  to  cleanse  the  body  of  Sarpedon,  slain  in 
battle,  and  afterwards  to  bathe  it  in  a  river. 

"Phoebus,  my  son,  delay  not:  from  beneath 
Yon  bill  of  weapons  drawn,  cleanse  from  his  blood 
Sarpedon's  corse;  then,  bearing  him  remote, 
Lave  him  in  waters  of  the  running  stream."— Cowper. 

The  jailer,  then,  might  have  cleansed  them  from  their  wounds  without 
bathing  them;  but  the  original  imports,  that  they  were  cleansed  by 
bathing.  All  cleansing  is  not  washing ;  and  all  washing  is  not  bathing. 
When  Achilles  sends  out  his  friend  Patroclus  to  battle,  he  took  out 
his  goblet  of  exquisite  workmanship  to  make  libation  to  Jupiter.  But 
first  he  purified  it  with  sulphur,  and  then  washed  it  in  running  water. 

"  That  cup  producing  from  the  chest,  he  first 
With  sulphur  fumed  it,  then  with  water  rinsed 
Pellucid  of  the  running  stream." — Cowper. 

Cleanse,  or  make  clean,  is,  then,  quite  a  different  thing  from  bathe.  It 
may  here  be  observed  also,  that  this  was  a  sacred  rite,  yet  the  same 
words  are  used  for  ritual  purification,  that  are  employed  for  common 
purification. 

The  author  is  of  opinion,  that  there  is  an  apparent  connexion  between 
the  washing  of  the  wounds  and  the  performance  of  the  rite.  Be  it  so ; 
why  might  they  not  immerse  the  jailer  and  his  family  in  the  same  bath 
in  which  they  were  washed  from  their  stripes?  But  there  is  no  such 
connexion  as  this  writer  fancies.  The  baptism  and  the  bathing,  as  far 
as  the  passage  is  concerned,  might  not  have  been  at  the  same  time,  or 
the  same  place.  Had  there  been  no  conveniences  for  immersion  in  the 
prison,  what  would  prevent  them  from  going  to  the  Strymon,  on  which 
the  city  was  situated?  But  where  they  were  baptized,  I  neither  know 
nor  care. 

It  is  of  importance,  however,  to  consider  the  intimate  connexion 
between  baptism  and  the  faith  of  the  Gospel,  as  it  is  exhibited  in  this 
transaction.  Notwithstanding  the  miserable  plight  of  Paul  and  his  com- 
panion, the  baptism  was  performed  before  they  partook  of  refreshment 
in  the  jailer's  house.  Can  anything  more  clearly  indicate  the  importance 
of  this  ordinance? 

The  author  speaks  of  "  the  assumption  of  the  axiom,  that  baptizo  must 
mean  to  dip."  Who  is  it  that  assumes  this  as  an  axiom  ?  I  assume 
nothing  but  what  is  self-evident,  which  the  meaning  of  no  word  is.  As 
far,  then,  as  I  am  concerned,  this  representation  is  calumnious ;  I  never 
assume  the  meaning  of  any  word :  I  assign  no  meaning  till  the  occur- 
rences of  a  word  are  ascertained  and  examined.  Whether  a  word  has 
one  meaning,  or  several  meanings,  I  determine  by  this  examination  on 
philosophical  principles.  When  I  have  ascertained  the  primary  meaning 
of  a  word,  I  apply  it  to  every  case  where  it  will  serve,  admitting  no  new 
meaning  till  occurrences  prove  it.  When  I  have  ascertained  a  second 
meaning,  I  will  not  admit  a  third  as  long  as  the  first  or  second  will  serve. 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  361 

Thus  I  proceed  with  respect  to  any  number  of  meanings,  never  admitting 
a  new  meaning  without  proof.  Submission  to  these  principles  I  demand 
on  the  ground  of  self-evidence.  Submission  to  them,  I  yield  with 
respect  to  every  opponent.  These  laws  are  for  truth — not  for  party. 
Perverseness  may  reject  them — perverseness  has  rejected  every  first 
principle ;  but  I  have  no  doubt  that  all  candid  persons  will  acquiesce  in 
them.  Without  first  principles  interpretation  is  impossible.  Mathematics 
may  as  well  demonstrate  without  axioms.  The  criticism  of  our  oppo- 
nents is  altogether  without  science:  instead  of  leading  to  sound  conclu- 
sions, it  introduces  universal  confusion  and  uncertainty. 

Now,  let  us  for  a  moment  compare  the  assumptions  of  this  writer 
with  mine.  Let  us  take  an  example  from  the  very  case  in  hand. 
Having  enumerated  a  great  number  of  his  improbabilities,  he  concludes: 
"  But  if  this  was  not  Christian  duty  and  practice,  then  baptizo  does  not 
signify  to  dip."  Now,  does  not  the  writer  here  assume  the  very  point 
in  debate  ?  He  assumes  a  view  of  Christian  duty  and  practice ;  and 
on  that  ground  determines  the  meaning  of  the  word  totally  without 
reference  to  its  use  in  the  language.  What  is  Christian  duty  and 
practice,  we  must  learn  from  the  words  of  Scripture, — not  from  a  crazy 
imagination.  Whether  this  word  signifies  to  immerse,  we  must  learn, 
not  from  our  own  views  of  probability,  but  from  the  examples  in  which 
it  is  found  in  the  language.  Had  Abraham  used  thi^  principle  of  inter- 
pretation, he  never  would  have  submitted  to  circumcision — he  never 
would  have  consented  to  kill  Isaac.  I  refuse  to  listen  to  any  testimony 
but  that  of  the  word  itself,  speaking  in  the  instances  in  which  it  is 
found  in  the  language.  All  persons  who  attempt  to  settle  the  question 
on  any  other  ground,  I  denounce  as  fanatics  in  criticism. 

With  respect  to  Acts  xviii.  8,  and  1  Cor.  i.  13 — 17,  the  author  says, 
"  In  both  of  these  passages  the  verb  is  used  alone ;  and  that  the  special 
and  sacred  sense  of  purify,  is  more  suitable  to  such  a  usage,  than  the 
general  common  sense  of  dip,  is  immediately  obvious.  On  the  one 
supposition,  we  have  the  strange  sentences,  They  believed  and  were 
dipped,"  &c. 

Here,  again,  our  author's  error  arises  from  his  inattention  to  gram- 
matical appropriation.  I  have,  again  and  again,  shown  that  even  where 
purify  is  applied  to  a  sacred  rite,  it  acquires  no  sacred  or  special  signifi- 
cation. It  is  just  the  common  signification,  applied  in  reference  to  a 
sacred  thing ;  and  in  like  manner  dip,  in  its  common  signification,  ap- 
plies to  the  most  sacred  things.  As  to  the  sense  of  the  word  there  is  no 
difference  between  the  common  and  sacred. 

What  the  author  calls  strange  sentences,  are  exemplified  in  all  lan- 
guages every  hour  :  it  is  what  must  happen  with  respect  to  all  appro- 
priations. It  is  strange  beyond  conception,  that  the  author  did  not 
perceive  that  the  very  same  thing  takes  place  with  respect  to  the  word 
circumcise.  This  word  can  be  used  alone :  "  Ye  on  the  sabbath-day  cir- 
cumcise a  man."  What  a  strange  sentence!  Cut  a  man  around!  But  I 
need  not  waste  time  in  proving  what  must  be  familiar  to  every  reader. 

"  That  baptizing,"  says  the  writer,  "  was  regarded  by  St.  Paul  as  a 
purifying  or  consecrating  to  the  service  of  Him  for  whom  the  rite  was 

46 


362  REPLY   TO   THE    CONGREGATIONAL  MAGAZINE. 

administered,  agrees  exactly  with  the  train  of  thought  exhibited  in  tne 
latter  passage,"  &c. 

Might  not  baptizing  be  viewed  as  a  purification,  though  its  name  is 
not  purification?  Purifying  may  be  the  emblem  of  the  rite,  as  well  when 
it  is  called  immersion,  as  if  purification  were  its  name.  It  is  strange 
that  the  author  brings  this  so  often  forward,  without  perceiving  its 
fallacy.  One  would  think  that  he  never  heard  of  circumcision.  It  is 
not  my  object  to  discover  the  errors  of  the  writer  on  any  other  subject 
than  that  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  question ;  but  I  strongly  sus- 
pect that  he  had  some  Puseyite  view  of  the  nature  of  this  rite.  It  is  no 
consecration;  it  is  no  ceremonial  purification;  it  is  only  an  emblematical 
cleansing. 

The  question,  Acts  xix.  4 — 7,  has  to  the  writer  the  same  appearance 
of  strangeness  in  our  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  disputed  word.  I  hope 
I  have,  by  this  time,  made  him  a  little  more  familiar  with  this  style, 
from  circumcision  and  other  appropriations.  His  anointed  king  or  priest, 
would  be  familiar  to  every  one;  an  oiled  king,  would  appear  strange.  I 
could  bear  such  criticism  from  the  vulgar ;  but  it  is  intolerable  from  a 
man  of  letters.  Did  the  writer  ever  hear  of  dubbing  a  man  a  knight  ? 
To  dub,  means  to  strike ;  and  knights  were  constituted  by  the  blow  of  a 
sword.  Let  us  try  the  writer's  criticism  on  this  expression  :  "  On  the 
supposition  that  dub  signifies  to  strike,  we  have  this  strange  question, 
Were  you  struck  a  knight?  Dub,  then,  cannot  signify  to  strike;  but 
pwify  will  suit  to  admiration.  Were  you  purified  a  knight  ?  is  most 
natural  and  appropriate." 

On  the  supposition  that  the  persons  referred  to  in  this  passage  were 
baptized  in  the  first  interview,  the  author  complains  with  respect  to  a 
change  of  raiment.  Such  inquiries  show  more  perverseness  than 
wisdom.  I  hold  such  things  as  utterly  unworthy  of  mention.  The 
meaning  of  the  word  can  never  be  affected  by  such  scruples.  As  they 
were  baptized,  they  were  immersed.  I  care  not  how  they  were  provided 
on  the  occasion. 

I  have  now  gone  through  this  series  of  papers,  and  examined  every  thing 
that  has  the  appearance  of  argument  with  a  minuteness  that  must  appear 
tedious  to  most  readers.  Two  ways  suggested  themselves  to  me  for  my 
procedure.  The  first  was,  to  detect  the  false  principles  on  which  both 
the  arguments  and  objections  rest,  and  leave  the  reader  to  make  the 
application.  The  second  was,  to  follow  the  writer,  and  refute  every  thing 
in  detail.  The  first  would  have  been  more  suitable  to  my  general  under- 
taking; but  the  second  is  the  most  satisfactory  fur  most  readers,  especially 
as  the  controversy  immediately  concerns  the  interpretation  of  so  many 
passages  of  Scripture,  and  so  vast  a  range  of  Greek  literature.  Had  I 
contented  myself  with  showing  that  when  he  takes  out  of  the  word  in 
question  continuation,  effect,  intention,  with  many  other  things  that  the 
word  itself  does  not  contain,  I  might  have  done  enough  for  the  learned 
world ;  but  readers  in  general,  will  wish  to  have  the  principles  unfolded 
by  illustration.  At  first,'I  determined  to  dismiss  the  consideration  of  the 
prepositions  concerned  in  the  controversy,  with  a  few  observations;  but 
I  afterwards  considered  that,  however  tedious  the  task,  it  would  be  more 


REPLY   TO    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    MAGAZINE.  363 

satisfactory  to  give  a  particular  account  of  every  passage  in  Greek  lite- 
rature, to  which  the  writer  appeals  for  his  doctrine,  as  to  the  testimony 
of  the  prepositions.  This  I  thought  the  more  necessary,  as  some  of  the 
most  essential  principles  on  this  subject  have  been  overlooked,  or  mis- 
taken, by  the  most  distinguished  grammarians ;  while  their  doctrine  has 
been  used  for  purposes  they  never  contemplated. 

The  fundamental  error  of  my  opponent,  with  regard  to  the  preposi- 
tions concerned  in  this  controversy  is,  that  in  ascertaining  their  testi- 
mony, he  makes  the  English  idiom  the  standard  to  which  the  Greek 
must  conform.  I  have  shown,  that  with  as  good  reason  the  English 
might  be  made  to  conform  to  the  Greek ;  but  that  neither  should  be 
obliged  to  conform  to  the  other.  It  is  not  certain  that  a  Greek  prepo- 
sition has  such  a  meaning  in  such  a  place,  because  in  such  a  situation 
we  should  use  such  a  preposition ;  for  the  idioms  of  the  two  tongues 
may  be,  in  this  respect,  different.  We  may  sometimes  use  an  English 
preposition  to  translate  a  Greek  one,  when  the  two  prepositions  are  by 
no  means  coincident  in  meaning.  This  is  a  canon  of  great  importance. 
My  opponent,  so  far  from  being  aware  of  it,  interprets  the  Greek  prepo- 
sitions by  whatever  English  prepositions  would  be  used  by  us  in  the 
same  situation.  Can  anything  more  strongly  show  the  necessity  of  sound 
principles  as  the  foundation  of  sound  interpretation. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


OBSERVATIONS    ON    THE    VIEW    OF    DR.   MILLER,    OF    NEW    YORK,   WITH 
RESPECT    TO    THE    MEANING    OF    THE    WORD    BAPTISM. 


Section  I. — "  If  I  know  my  own  heart,"  says  Dr.  Miller,  "  it  is  my 
purpose  to  exhibit  the  subject  in  the  light  of  truth,  and  to  advance 
nothing  but  that  which  appears  to  rest  on  the  authority  of  Him  who  in- 
stituted the  ordinance  under  consideration,  and  who  is  alone  competent 
to  declare  his  will  concerning  it."  Though  this  is  of  no  value  as  to  his 
argument,  yet  it  is  of  infinite  value  as  to  himself;  and  the  expression  of 
such  a  sentiment  cannot  fail  to  be  satisfactory  to  his  opponents,  while 
it  entitles  him  to  that  "  candid  and  patient  hearing"  which  he  requests. 
If  I  forget  it  in  any  of  my  observations  on  his  work,  it  is  far  from  my 
intention  in  the  commencement.  My  design  is  to  examine  his  reason- 
ing fairly,  candidly,  and  patiently.  If  he  has  a  single  particle  of  truth, 
which  I  have  not  yet  discovered,  I  will  accept  it  with  gratitude.  Truth 
is  my  riches :  to  contend  for  it  in  the  sight  of  God,  is  my  highest  glory. 
Men  of  sincerity  and  men  of  God  may  be  in  error  as  to  the  meaning  of 
Scripture,  yet  in  no  instance  is  error  either  innocent  or  harmless.  We 
should  know,  and  it  must  be  in  all  cases  important  to  know,  what  God 
has  revealed  for  our  belief  and  practice.  If  attachment  to  a  favourite 
view  makes  its  evidence  appear  stronger  than  it  really  is,  or  makes  us 
view  as  evidence  that  which  is  not  of  the  nature  of  evidence ;  if  it  pre- 
vents opposite  evidence  from  having  its  due  weight,  our  sincerity  is  no 
security  for  arriving  at  a  just  conclusion. 

Notwithstanding  the  favourable  impression  made  on  me  by  the  decla- 
ration quoted  above,  I  am  greatly  impressed  with  a  conviction  that  in 
announcing  his  very  design,  he  manifests  symptoms  of  distrust  in  his  own 
cause.  He  seems  to  me  hardly  to  know  with  precision  what  he  is  to 
state  as  his  belief  on  the  subject,  and  what  he  is  to  prove.  "  Sprink- 
ling or  affusion,"  he  tells  us,  "  is  a  method  of  baptism  just  as  valid  and 
lawful  as  any  other."  And  while  he  announces  it  as  his  object  to  prove 
this,  he  says,  in  the  same  breath,  "  or  rather  to  maintain,  from  Scrip- 
ture, and  from  the  best  usages  of  the  Christian  church,  that  baptism  by 
sprinkling  or  affusion,  not  only  rests  on  as  good  authority  as  immer- 
sion, but  that  it  is  a  method  decisively  more  scriptural,  suitable,  and 
edifying." 

364 


REPLY   TO    DR.    MILLER.  365 

Here  then  is  an  utter  want  of  precision.  He  does  not  tell  us  what  is 
the  meaning  of  the  word ;  and  throughout  his  whole  work  I  have  not 
learned  what  he  makes  its  meaning  in  the  ordinance  of  Christ.  He 
confounds  sprinkling  and  affusion,  which  are  different  modes,  and  which 
are  expounded  by  their  friends  as  being  different  emblems.  He  sup- 
poses that  several  modes,  or  all  modes,  are  equally  lawful,  yet  that 
sprinkling  or  affusion  is  more  scriptural,  suitable,  and  edifying,  than  any 
of  them.  If  it  is  more  scriptural  than  the  rest,  how  can  all  modes  be 
included  in  the  meaning  of  the  word?  If  all  modes  are  included  in  the 
meaning  of  the  word,  no  mode  can  be  more  scriptural  than  any  other. 
If  sprinkling  is  decisively  more  suitable  and  edifying  than  any  other 
mode,  does  he  not  bring  a  charge  against  the  Institutor  for  not  restrict- 
ing the  observance  to  this  mode? 

11  Now  we  contend,"  says  Dr.  M.,  "  that  this  word  does  not  neces- 
sarily, nor  even  commonly,  signify  to  immerse,  but  also  implies  to  wash, 
to  sprinkle,  to  pour  on  water,  and  to  tinge  or  die  with  any  liquid ;  and 
therefore  accords  very  well  with  the  mode  of  baptism  by  sprinkling  or 
affusion." 

You  contend,  Dr.  M. !  Where  do  you  thus  contend  ?  Say  rather 
you  assert,  for  there  is  not  even  an  attempt  to  prove  this  diversity  of 
meaning.  I  have  gone  through  a  vast  range  of  Greek  literature ;  and 
from  all  the  examples  I  could  meet,  I  have  shown  that  the  word  has  but 
one  meaning,  and  that  this  one  meaning  is  immersion.  Dr.  M.  meets 
me  by  an  objection  that  he  contends  that  the  word  has  not  only  a 
secondary  meaning,  but  a  variety  of  meanings  that  no  word  in  any 
language  could  have ;  and  all  this  without  even  an  attempt  at  proof  by 
examples  and  criticism.  If  Dr.  M.  and  his  friends  think  that  this  is 
evidence,  they  may  be  sincere  in  believing  anything.  Dr.  M.  not  only 
asserts  what  he  has  not  attempted  to  prove,  but  what  is  contrary  to  self- 
evidence.  There  is  not  in  any  language  a  word  that  signifies  the  three 
modes  in  question,  or  any  two  of  them.  If  a  word  extends  to  all  of 
them,  it  can  signify  none  of  them.  It  might  as  well  be  said  that  the 
word  immerse  in  English  signifies  to  dip,  to  pour,  to  sprinkle,  as  that  the 
Greek  word  has  such  significations ;  or  that  pour  signifies  to  dip  and  to 
sprinkle ;  and  that  sprinkle  signifies  to  pour  and  to  dip.  I  would  dispute 
the  point  with  every  confidence,  if  it  respected  a  language  of  whose 
very  alphabet  I  am  ignorant. 

But  what  shall  I  say  to  the  assertion  of  Dr.  M.,  that  this  word  sig- 
nifies to  tinge  or  to  dye  ?  Have  I  not,  on  the  authority  of  every  example 
of  the  alleged  occurrences  of  this  word,  proved  that  it  is  never  used  in 
the  sense  of  the  primitive  word  signifying  to  dye  ?  Has  he  met  any 
instance  proving  the  contrary?  If  he  has,  why  has  he  not  produced  it? 
If  he  has  not,  why  has  he  made  such  an  assertion? 

Section  II. — There  is  a  peculiarity  in  Dr.  M.'s  reasoning,  which  I 
do  not  think  I  have  ever  met  in  any  controversial  writer.  He  substitutes 
his  own  solemn  assertions  for  proof.  "  I  can  assure  you,"  says  he, 
i!  that  the  word  we  render  baptize,  does  legitimately  signify  the  appli- 
cation of  water  in  any  way,  as  well  as  by  immersion."     This  he  never 


366  REPLY   TO    DR.    MILLER. 

attempts  to  prove.  Surely  they  who  can  be  convinced  by  this,  may 
believe  anything  to  which  their  prejudices  incline  them.  To  rebut  this, 
it  would  be  enough  for  me  to  say,  "  I  assure  you  that  Dr.  M.  is  quite 
mistaken."  Why  has  Dr.  M.  entered  the  field  at  all,  when  he  has  never 
fired  a  shot,  but  only  blank  cartridge  ? 

I  demand  the  proof  of  this  solemn  assertion.  Where  are  the  docu- 
ments that  warrant  it?  So  far  from  signifying  every  application  of 
water,  the  word  has  no  essential  connexion  with  water  at  all — nor  even 
with  fluids.  It  is  applicable  to  every  thing  that  is  capable  of  being 
penetrated.  But  if  it  is  a  word  so  various  in  its  meaning,  as  to  common 
things,  why  has  not  Dr.  M.  told  us  whether  it  has  all  these  meanings  in 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  or  which  of  them  it  has? 

"The  evangelists,"  says  Dr.  M.,  "tell  us  that  the  scribes  and  Pha- 
risees invariably  washed  (in  the  original,  baptized)  their  hands  before 
dinner."  Where  are  we  told  this?  The  common  reading  is  not  bap- 
tized. But  were  it  adopted,  is  it  not  quite  suitable  ?  What  hinders 
the  hands  to  be  immersed  ?  Does  Dr.  M.  think  that  if  the  word  can 
refer  to  the  hands  as  a  part,  it  cannot  refer  to  the  body  as  a  whole  ? 
May  we  not  dip  the  hand  as  well  as  the  body  ?  This  argument  is  so 
inapplicable,  that  I  can  hardly  trust  myself  to  state  it  in  order  to  refu- 
tation.    To  whom  does  it  need  refutation  ? 

"  When  we  are  told,"  he  continues,  "  that  when  they  come  from  the 
market,  except  they  wash,  (in  the  original,  'except  they  baptize,')  they 
eat  not."  What  difficulty  is  here?  Why  should  not  this  be  immer- 
sion ?  What  they  did  on  this  occasion  is  known  from  the  signification 
of  the  word ;  let  that  be  determined  by  the  authority  of  the  language 
in  general,  and  it  will  then  be  known  what  they  did  on  coming  from 
market. 

"  When  we  read,"  says  Dr.  M.,  "  of  the  Pharisees  being  so  scrupulous 
about  the  washing  (in  the  original,  the  baptizing)  of  cups,  pots,  and 
brazen  vessels,  and  tables,  &c. ;  it  surely  cannot  mean  in  any  of  these 
cases,  to  immerse  or  plunge."  How  does  the  reading  of  this  prove  that 
baptism  is  not  immersion  ?  If  these  things  were  baptized,  they  were 
immersed,  because  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  language. 
What  would  hinder  the  Pharisees  from  immersing  these  things  ?  Every 
thing  mentioned  is  easily  capable  of  immersion.  Must  we  give  a  new 
meaning  to  a  word  in  order  to  save  trouble  to  superstition  ?  If  such 
arguments  weigh  in  the  mind  of  any  man,  I  will  not  deny  that  he  may 
be  very  conscientious,  but  I  cannot  avoid  believing  that  he  is  more  easily 
satisfied  with  proof  than  a  sound  mind  ought  to  be. 

Dr.  M.  next  refers  to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  this  is  a 
figurative  baptism,  in  which  there  is  no  literal  immersion,  pouring,  or 
sprinkling,  nor  any  likeness  as  to  any  mode.  There  is  no  mode  in  the 
operations  of  the  Spirit. 

Next,  he  brings  us  to  the  Red  Sea,  and  denies  that  the  Israelites  in 
their  baptism  there,  were  immersed.  If  he  means  that  the  water  did 
not  touch  them,  it  is  very  true ;  but  can  candour  refuse  to  admit  that 
what  took  place  on  that  occasion  may,  both  emblematically  and  beauti- 
fully, be  called  an  immersion,  or  a  burial  in  the  sea  ?     He  says,  that 


REPLY    TO    DR.    MILLER.  367 

the  cloud  did  not  touch  them.  The  Scripture  says,  that  they  were  in 
the  cloud,  and  tinder  the  cloud.  He  knows  that  they  were  not  immersed, 
though  the  narrative  expressly  says  that  they  were  immersed,  using  the 
most  definite  word  in  the  language ;  yet  he  is  very  willing  to  believe 
that  they  were  sprinkled  by  the  spray,  though  there  is  no  such  thing 
mentioned.  If  persons  will  be  so  unreasonable  in  rejecting  evidence  on 
one  side,  and  so  credulous  on  the  other,  they  may  be  very  conscientious, 
but  we  must  be  allowed  to  say,  that  they  are  very  confident  in  error. 

He  next  refers  to  the  case  of  Judas  dipping  his  hand  in  the  dish,  at 
the  passover.  He  says,  that  "  no  one  can  imagine  that  this  implies  that 
the  whole  hand  was  immersed  in  the  gravy."  Surely,  this  is  egregious 
trifling.  Has  this  anything  to  do  with  the  mode  expressed  by  the  word  ? 
Might  it  not  as  well  be  alleged  that  the  English  word  dip  does  not 
signify  to  immerse,  because  the  English  version  says  of  Judas,  that  he 
dipped  his  hand  in  the  dish?  Does  not  the  same  objection  apply  equally 
to  the  translation  as  to  the  original  ?  It  is  astonishing  that  any  degree 
of  perspicacity  could  not  discover  this.  Besides,  the  whole  hand  might 
be  immersed  in  the  dish :  it  is  in  the  dish,  and  not  in  the  gravy.  Surely, 
it  is  unworthy  of  such  a  man  as  Dr.  M.  to  quibble  in  this  manner.  The 
word  has  its  mode  here,  as  well  as  if  the  object  had  gone  to  the  bottom 
of  the  Baltic. 

With  respect  to  the  above  cases  he  says,  "  It  surely  cannot  mean,  in 
any  of  these  cases,  to  immerse,  or  plunge."  It  surely  does  mean  to  dip, 
in  each  of  the  cases. 

"  If  a  man  is  said,  by  the  inspired  evangelist,"  says  Dr.  M.,  "  to  be 
baptized,  when  his  hands  only  are  washed."  I  must  believe  that  Dr. 
M.  states  evidence  conscientiously.  If  I  must,  what  am  I  to  think  of 
his  accuracy  ?  Is  it  not  awful  to  report  evidence  from  the  testimony  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  this  manner  ?  Millions  of  people  will  rely  on  this 
representation,  as  on  an  oracle ;  and  believe  that  the  Holy  Spirit  says 
that  the  persons  are  baptized,  who  have  only  their  hands  washed.  This 
is  not  the  testimony  of  the  evangelist.  As  long  as  the  leaders  of  parties 
will  allow  themselves  to  take  such  freedom  with  their  documents,  they 
teach  their  followers  to  pervert  the  word  of  God. 

"  If  couches,"  he  says,  "  are  spoken  of  as  baptized,  when  the  cleansing 
of  water  was  applied  to  them  in  any  manner."  When  it  was  applied  to 
them  in  any  manner !  Is  this  an  honest  way  to  report  facts  ?  Where 
did  he  learn  that  the  water  was  applied  in  any  manner,  when  it  is  spoken 
of,  as  the  baptism  of  couches?  This  is  to  assume  the  thing  in  dispute. 
How  the  water  was  applied,  we  can  learn  only  from  the  word.  Now 
can  this  be  reasoning?  What  is  the  use  of  such  assertions?  Can  it 
serve  any  purpose  but  to  deceive  the  ignorant  and  the  credulous? 

He  adds:  "  and  when  the  complete  immersion  of  them  is  out  of  the 
question."  Here  again  he  assumes  as  a  thing  impossible,  that  which  is 
not  only  possible,  but  of  easy  performance.  Couches  may  be  immersed 
without  any  difficulty ;  and  if  the  Holy  Spirit  reports  truly,  couches 
were  immersed,  as  they  are  said  to  have  been  baptized.  I  cannot  suffi- 
ciently express  the  surprise  I  feel,  that  this  distinguished  writer  should 
allow  himself  to  make  such  assumptions.    If  he  counted  on  the  credulity 


368  REPLY   TO    DR.    MILLER. 

of  his  own  party,  did  he  think  that  we  should  allow  him  to  assume  the 
point  in  debate  ?  Indeed  the  palpable  fact  that  among  all  the  instances 
in  which  this  word  is  applied,  there  is  not  one  in  which  the  thing  said  to 
be  baptized  is  not  capable  of  immersion,  is  an  irrefragable  argument  in 
favour  of  immersion.  Had  it  any  other  signification,  it  must  sometimes 
be  found  applied  to  things  incapable  of  immersion.  Did  it,  for  instance, 
signify  to  pwify,  or  to  pour,  or  to  sprinkle,  it  would  often  be  found 
applied  to  things  that  could  not  have  been  immersed,  as  houses,  &c. 
Houses  are  said  to  be  purified, — never  to  be  baptized.  If  we  allow  Dr. 
M.  to  assume  the  point  in  debate,  and  take  his  solemn  assurances  for 
proof,  there  is  not  on  earth  a  more  convincing  reasoner.  But  if  this 
is  not  granted  to  him,  there  is  nothing  of  argument  in  his  work. 

Let  us  suppose  that  the  question  respects  a  modern  custom  of  some 
foreign  nation,  and  that  from  the  report  of  a  traveller,  there  is  a  different 
judgment  formed  as  to  the  action  performed  on  the  couches.  One  party 
says  they  were  dipped ;  another  says  they  were  merely  sprinkled ;  an- 
other, that  water  was  poured  on  them ;  another,  that  they  were  washed 
in  any  manner ;  another,  that  they  were  fumigated ;  another,  that  they 
were  scoured,  &c.  How  is  the  controversy  to  be  settled?  Is  it  not  by 
the  testimony  of  the  word  employed  to  designate  the  action  ? 

With  respect  to  Heb.  ix.  10,  Dr.  M.  says :  "  Now  we  know  that  by 
far  the  greater  part  of  these  '  divers  washings,'  were  accomplished  by 
sprinkling  or  affusion,  and  not  by  immersion."  Do  we  so,  Dr.  M.? 
How  do  we  know  that  these  divers  baptisms  were  accomplished  by 
sprinkling  or  affusion?  We  cannot  know  this,  unless  we  take  Dr.  M.'s 
solemn  assurance  as  proof  of  the  fact.  Here,  again,  he  assumes  the 
point  to  be  proved;  he  assumes  that  these  baptisms  are  washings  in 
general,  and  that  sprinklings  are  washings.  We  know,  indeed,  that  there 
were  a  great  number  of  sprinklings  and  affusions  under  the  law ;  but 
how  do  we  know  that  all  these  sprinklings  and  affusions,  or  any  of  them, 
are  called  baptisms  ?  How  do  we  know  that  what  are  here  called  divers 
baptisms  were  performed  by  sprinkling  and  affusion?  This  passage 
does  not  assert  this.  Can  this  be  known  in  any  other  way  than  by 
ascertaining  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptism,  by  the  usage  of  the 
language  ?  Where  does  he  learn  that  what  is  done  by  sprinkling  or 
affusion,  belongs  to  those  divers  baptisms?  Can  he  know  this  from  any 
other  source,  than  from  the  meaning  of  the  word  itself?  "  The  blood 
of  the  paschal  lamb,"  he  tells  us,  "  was  directed  to  be  sprinkled  on  the 
door-posts  of  the  tabernacle."  Nothing  can  be  more  incontrovertible. 
But  was  this  sprinkling  of  blood  a  literal  washing  ?  Was  it  a  baptism  ? 
It  was  an  emblematical  purification ;  but  it  was  a  literal  defilement. 
Sprinkling  is  not  washing;  and  washing  is  not  baptism.  Is  the 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  on  the  door-posts  called  a  baptism  here,  or  any- 
where else?  Is  the  sprinkling  of  the  book,  and  of  the  people,  Heb. 
ix.  19,  called  a  baptism?  Is  the  sprinkling  of  the  consecrated  oil  called 
baptism?  Is  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  on  the  day  of  atonement  called 
baptism?  Why  assume  all  these  points  as  facts?  Can  this  be  called 
reasoning  from  principles,  or  expounding  from  the  ascertained  meaning 
of  words?     Dr.  M.  might  as  well  solemnly  assure  his  readers  of  the 


REPLY    TO    DR.    MILLER.  369 

truth  of  his  doctrine,  on  the  authority  of  his  dreams.  This  is  worse  than 
dreaming;  for  thousands  of  readers  will  take  this  for  satisfactory  proof. 

To  what  purpose  is  it  to  refer  us  to  the  sprinkling  of  Aaron  and 
his  sons  with  blood,  with  other  sprinklings  ?  There  were  divers  purifica- 
tions, but  they  were  not  divers  baptisms.  Yet,  after  enumerating  these 
sprinklings,  he  gravely  tells  us :  "  Now  these  are  the  divers  baptisms 
of  which  the  apostle  speaks."  Who  told  him  this  ?  The  passage  does 
not  say  so :  we  have  not  even  the  authority  of  a  dream.  Nothing  but 
assumption,  assumption,  assumption.  Why  does  he  not  identify  these 
sprinklings  with  the  baptisms  ?  This  has  never  been  effected ;  this 
cannot  be  effected.  Dr.  M.  is  like  a  lawyer,  who  is  very  strong  in  proof 
that  the  son  of  such  a  man  is  entitled  to  a  particular  estate,  but  utterly 
fails  in  proving  the  identity  of  his  client  with  the  person  who  is  the  heir. 
This  he  merely  assumes. 

But  Dr.  M.  will  give  us  proof  at  last.  "  Happily,"  says  he,  "  the 
inspired  apostle  does  not  leave  us  in  doubt  what  those  divers  baptisms 
were,  of  which  he  speaks."  Well,  I  will  ask  no  better  authority  than 
that  which  he  proposes.  I  will  bow  with  implicit  submission  to  the 
decision  of  the  inspired  apostle.  If  Paul  tells  us  that  certain  sprinklings 
are  baptisms,  I  will  believe  that  they  are  such.  But  the  inspired  apostle 
says  nothing  like  this.  Dr.  M.  tells  us  that  the  inspired  apostle  "  singles 
out,  and  presents  sprinkling  as  his  chosen  and  only  specimen."  Does 
the  apostle  give  sprinkling  as  a  specimen  of  baptism  ?  He  does  no  such 
thing.  In  showing  us  how  the  apostle  gives  sprinkling  as  a  specimen  of 
baptism,  Dr.  M.  says,  "  '  For,'  says  he,  in  the  13th,  19th,  and  21st 
verses  of  the  same  chapter,  explaining  what  he  means  by  '  divers  bap- 
tisms,' '  if  the  blood  of  bulls,  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer, 
sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh;  how 
much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,'  "  &c.  Now  how  is  this  a  reason 
for  what  he  alleges?  How  does  this  explain  what  the  apostle  means  by 
divers  baptisms  1  Does  this  identify  sprinkling  with  baptism  ?  The 
argument  of  this  passage  is,  that  if  the  sprinkling  of  blood  under  the 
law  served  to  purify  ceremonially,  much  more  would  the  blood  of  Christ 
purify  from  sin.  There  is  here  nothing  that  looks  like  an  identification 
of  the  sprinklings  under  the  law,  with  the  baptisms  under  the  law. 
How  can  any  man  say,  that  the  sprinkling  in  the  13th  verse  is  one  of 
the  "  divers  baptisms"  previously  mentioned  ?  The  verses  referred  to, 
give  no  specimen  of  the  "  divers  baptisms,"  but  contrast  the  efficacy  of 
the  blood  of  Christ  with  that  of  the  sprinklings  under  the  law.  Instead 
of  explaining  what  the  inspired  apostle  means  by  the  divers  baptisms. 
the  verses  referred  to  preach  the  atonement. 

But  in  addressing  Jews,  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  it  was  necessary 
for  the  apostle  to  explain  what  was  meant  literally  by  the  divers  bap- 
tisms. Did  they  need  an  explanation  of  the  meaning  of  a  word  employed 
to  designate  a  practice  of  their  own  law? 

That  the  word  signifies  every  application  of  water,  Dr.  M.  again  and 
again  asserts;  but  he  never  enters  into  proof  by  an  actual  appeal  to  the 
occurrences  of  the  word  in  the  language.  Of  what  use  is  such  a  work 
as   to   controversy?     Can    anything    but  the  usage  of  the   language, 

47 


370  REPLY    TO   DR.    MILLER. 

proved  by  examples,  determine  the  question  ?  There  is  in  his  work, 
nothing  like  criticism.  He  alludes  to  my  bold  assertion,  that  the  word  is 
perfectly  univocal,  yet  he  never  grapples  with  my  reasoning  and  exam- 
ples. The  work  may  be  a  very  good  confession  of  his  faith,  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word :  but  it  never  enters  into  the  discussion  of  the 
question. 

The  next  point  which  Dr.  M.  professes  to  prove  is,  that  "  there  is 
nothing  in  the  thing  signified  by  baptism  which  renders  immersion 
more  necessary  or  proper  than  any  other  mode  of  applying  water  in  this 
ordinance." 

Were  this  a  fact  it  would  not  deliver  from  the  obligation  of  immersion. 
If  a  mode  is  commanded,  that  mode  ought  to  be  observed.  If  Jesus 
says  Go,  we  should  go  :  if  he  says  Come,  we  should  come,  without 
stopping  to  inquire  the  reason  of  the  command.  Whether  there  is  any- 
thing emblematical  in  the  mode  of  the  rite,  depends  not  on  the  word, 
but  on  the  inspired  explanation  of  the  ordinance.  Nothing  can  be  more 
clearly  taught  than  that  the  mode  is  emblematical.  Rom.  vi.  1,  is  most 
express. 

Dr.  M.  gives  us  a  number  of  examples  in  which  pouring  and  sprink- 
ling are  used  with  respect  to  Divine  blessings.  Did  any  one  ever  deny 
this  ?  Does  this  show  that  immersion  cannot  be  used  for  an  emblem- 
atical purpose  ? 

Does  Dr.  M.  believe  that  pouring  and  sprinkling  are  emblematical  in 
baptism  ?  If  so,  which  of  them  is  the  mode  appointed  ?  Pouring  and 
sprinkling  are  modes  as  different  from  one  another,  as  each  of  them  is 
from  immersion.  If  so,  no  other  mode  but  the  one  appointed  can  be 
true  baptism.  How  can  he  admit  that  the  other  modes  can  be  valid  1 
Assuredly,  if  any  mode  is  used  for  an  emblematical  purpose,  that  mode  is 
essential,  as  really  as  the  water.  He  appears  to  me,  however,  to  believe 
that  Christ  has  affixed  no  emblem  as  to  mode,  but  that  we  may  adopt  a 
mode  that  will  be  suitable  and  edifying  by  its  emblem.  If  this  is  his 
meaning,  then  he  may  compete  either  with  Pusey,  or  the  Pope.  If  he 
has  a  warrant  to  create  emblems,  he  may  also  create  ordinances. 

The  improbabilities  and  difficulties  of  immersion  are  the  next  objec- 
tions. How  could  three  thousand  be  immersed  in  one  day  ?  Would  to 
God  that  he  would  put  it  into  my  power  to  make  the  experiment ; 
I  have  no  doubt  that  I  could  accomplish  the  matter  in  the  third  part  of 
a  day.  The  difficulties  and  improbabilities  are  all  grounded  on  super- 
stitious views  of  the  ordinance.  The  performance  of  baptism  is  not 
confined  to  office — this  is  the  mummery  of  Babylon.  In  baptizing  the 
three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  I  will  trouble  neither  the  twelve 
nor  the  seventy,  if  they  have  more  important  work.  But  he  has  another 
difficulty  as  to  the  water.  I  can  do  miracles  about  the  water ;  I  will 
make  the  word  find  it  for  me,  even  in  the  deserts  of  Arabia,  if  it  is 
asserted  that  there  was  a  baptism  there.  This  writer,  like  our  opponents 
in  general,  mistakes  the  burden  of  proof.  It  does  not  lie  on  us  to  show 
that  there  is  any  evidence  of  water,  except  the  evidence  implied  in 
the  word.  Many  writers  on  our  side  have  shown  that  there  is  inde- 
pendent evidence  of  the  sufficiency  of  water  in  Jerusalem.  This  is  highly 


REPLY    TO    DR.    MILLER.  371 

useful,  with  a  view  of  putting  obstinacy  to  the  blush ;  but  it  is  not 
necessary  to  prove  the  fact  by  direct  evidence  in  any  instance.  I  trample 
on  such  objections.  If  it  be  asserted  by  credible  testimony  that  a  man 
was  shot,  are  you  to  refuse  belief,  unless  you  are  informed  where  the 
powder  and  ball  were  purchased,  in  order  to  kill  him  ? 

Section  III. — The  following  observation  appears  to  me  to  be  both 
unchristian  and  unphilosophical.  "  The  man,  therefore,  who  can  believe 
that  the  three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  were  baptized  by 
immersion,  must  have  great  faith,  and  a  wonderful  facility  in  accommo- 
dating his  belief  to  his  wishes."  Must  have  great  faith!  Is  this  a 
becoming  way  of  speaking  of  the  belief  of  a  Scripture  statement  ?  To 
have  any  propriety,  this  must  imply  that  the  thing  is  asserted,  but  that 
it  is  highly  improbable.  If  the  thing  is  not  supposed  to  be  asserted, 
there  cannot  be  great  faith  in  believing  it.  I  can  find  no  other  consistent 
meaning  in  the  expression,  than  that,  although  the  word  did  testify  the 
fact,  it  is  too  improbable  for  rational  belief.  Now  I  will  make  myself 
still  more  credulous,  and  had  it  been  testified  by  the  inspired  writer  that 
three  hundred  thousand  were  baptized  in  one  day,  I  would  not  scruple 
to  believe  that  the  thing  was  true  in  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word. 
Let  God  be  true,  and  all  men  liars.  If  the  word  is  supposed  to  have 
other  meanings,  and  that  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  in  this  place  has 
not  the  alleged  meaning,  then  it  is  absurd  to  speak  of  faith  in  that  alleged 
meaning  as  great  faith.     It  is  faith  in  a  thing  that  is  not  testified. 

It  is  utterly  unphilosophical  as  well  as  unscriptural  to  reject  testimony 
on  views  of  probability :  on  this  very  ground  all  the  doctrines  of  the 
Gospel  have  been  rejected.  Another  may  as  reasonably  say,  "  The  man 
that  can  believe  that  a  guilty  creature  can  become  righteous  by  faith  in 
Jesus,  must  have  great  faith."  When  we  believe  that  three  thousand 
were  immersed  in  one  day,  we  rest  on  the  Divine  testimony,  ascertained 
by  the  meaning  of  the  words  which  the  Spirit  uses.  Whether  they  were 
immersed  depends  on  the  meaning  of  the  word,  not  on  any  view  of 
probability.  To  speak  of  a  facility  in  accommodating  our  faith  to  our 
wishes,  is  speaking  not  only  without  evidence,  but  contrary  to  self- 
evidence.  How  many  thousands  of  those  who  are  the  most  zealous  for 
immersion,  have  received  it  not  from  their  fathers,  nor  their  sect,  nor 
from  their  temporal  interests,  but  in  opposition  to  all  these!  What 
advantage  can  it  be  in  this  world  to  any  man?  To  oppose  infant 
sprinkling  is  the  heaviest  part  of  the  cross  of  Christ.  Why,  then,  should 
we  wish  it  true,  when  it  is  our  interest  to  be  convinced  that  it  is  false? 
All  temptations  to  tamper  with  evidence  lie  obviously  on  the  other  side. 
Were  Sir  Isaac  Newton  at  this  moment  alive,  and  a  Baptist,  I  really 
believe  that  in  Great  Britain  or  Ireland  it  would  be  difficult  to  procure 
him  the  situation  of  a  parish  schoolmaster. 

But  so  far  from  being  an  insurmountable  difficulty  at  all,  except  to 
superstition,  what  could  prevent  any  number  to  be  immersed  on  the 
same  day  ?  Could  there  be  any  difficulty  in  finding  water  in  Jerusalem 
and  its  neighbourhood?  Had  he  nothing  but  human  testimony  for  the 
fact,  to  reject  it  on  the  ground  of  improbability  would  be  unwarrantable. 


372  REPLY    TO    DR.    MILLER. 

Section  IV. — The  next  point  which  Dr.  M.  approaches  is  John's 
baptism.  This,  he  tells  us,  was  not  Christian  baptism.  Well,  what 
does  this  say  on  the  meaning  of  the  word  ?  What  is  baptism  in  one 
case  is  baptism  in  another.  Whatever  difference  in  any  other  respect 
there  may  be  between  the  baptism  of  John  and  the  baptism  of  Christ, 
there  could  be  no  difference  in  the  mode :  there  could  be  no  difference 
in  the  meaning  of  the  word. 

He  appeals  to  Acts  xix.  1 — 6,  as  proof  that  some  of  John's  disciples 
were  afterward  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  I  know  this  is  dis- 
puted ;  but  for  my  part  I  never  doubted  it,  I  cannot  see  how  this  can  be 
denied  without  torturing  the  word  of  God,  which  I  will  never  do  for  any 
cause  whatever. 

"  There  is  no  evidence,"  says  he,  "  and  I  will  venture  to  say  no  pro- 
bability, that  John  ever  baptized  by  immersion."  What  evidence  could 
he  expect  but  the  testimony  of  the  word  ?  If  that  signifies  to  immerse, 
then  there  is  express  evidence  that  the  very  action  designated  by  the 
name  of  the  ordinance  is  immersion.  He  might  as  well  venture  to  say 
that  there  is  no  evidence,  and  no  probability,  that  Jesus  rose  from  the 
dead.  He  might  allege  that  the  word  resurrection  has  another  meaning. 
On  the  same  principle,  when  we  read  that  such  a  person  was  hilled  in 
the  field  of  battle,  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  is  dead.  Is  not  this 
imported  in  the  word  killed?  And  if  it  is  not  proved  by  this,  it  is  not 
proved  at  all  by  the  document.  Now  there  is  no  man  who  would  reason 
with  obstinacy  so  foolish  in  reference  to  our  own  language.  Yet  this  is 
the  very  thing  that  Dr.  M.  and  almost  all  our  opponents  do  with  respect 
to  this  word.  In  ascertaining  the  evidence  of  its  meaning,  they  receive 
not  its  own  testimony.  Nothing  can  be  more  purely  fanatical.  There 
may  be  additional  evidence  and  corroborating  circumstances,  but  the 
direct  proof  of  what  John  did  in  baptizing,  or  any  other  man  did  in 
baptizing,  must  be  the  testimony  of  the  word  itself.  Men  who  do  not 
understand  this  are  not  fit  to  enter  the  field  of  controversy.  Besides,  as 
the  ground-work  of  his  allegation  of  improbability,  he  assumes  what  is 
not  in  evidence,  that  John  must  have  baptized  all  his  converts  personally, 
and  all  in  the  space  of  two  years  and  a  half.  The  very  improbability  is 
mere  assumption. 

At  Enon  he  makes  the  abundance  of  water  necessary  for  an  encamp- 
ment of  men,  women  and  children  around  John  the  Baptist.  Is  this 
interpretation,  or  is  it  romance  ?  Is  there  any  among  the  fairy  tales 
more  a  work  of  fancy  than  this?  Is  there  evidence  that  any  of  the 
crowd  remained  on  the  ground  a  single  night?  I  must  believe,  and  I 
will  try  to  believe,  that  Dr.  M.  thinks  he  is  fairly  representing  the 
evidence  of  the  inspired  documents :  but  if  he  does,  he  must  be  to  a 
wonderful  extent  under  the  influence  of  imagination.  He  creates  a  fact 
in  order  to  create  a  difficulty.  What  is  it  that  men  may  not  fancy  that 
they  see  in  Scripture,  when,  under  all  the  pledges  he  has  given  us,  Dr. 
M.  reports  that  this  passage  informs  him  of  an  encampment  around 
John  the  Baptist?  No  wonder  that  historians  like  Gibbon,  vitiate  their 
facts  by  additions  from  imagination,  when  they  are  opposed  to  truth! 

But  of  all  extravagances,  the  following  is  the  most  extravagant : — 


REPLY    TO    DR.    MILLER.  373 

"  John,  as  a  poor  man,  who  lived  in  the  wilderness,  whose  raiment  was 
of  the  meanest  kind,  and  whose  food  was  such  alone  as  the  desert  afford- 
ed ;  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  he  possessed  appropriate  vessels  for 
administering  baptism  to  multitudes  by  pouring  or  sprinkling.  He, 
therefore,  seems  to  have  made  use  of  the  neighbouring  stream."  If  any 
man  can  believe  this  reason,  I  will  not  envy  his  faith.  On  the  ground 
of  improbability  he  refuses  the  testimony  of  the  word,  yet  here  he  can 
believe  his  own  fiction,  for  which  there  is  neither  testimony  nor  proba- 
bility.   Why  the  hoof  of  an  ass  would  be  perfectly  sufficient. 

But  this  allegation  is  not  only  absurd  and  fictitious,  it  is  also  incon- 
sistent with  the  reason  which  he  has  alleged  for  John's  taking  up  his 
abode  at  Enon.  Has  he  not  told  us,  that  the  supply  of  water  for  the 
necessities  of  men,  women,  children,  and  beasts,  directed  to  this  locality? 
Surely  I  may  retort  his  own  observation.  He  must  have  great  faith  and 
a  wonderful  facility  in  accommodating  his  belief  to  his  wishes,  who  can 
believe  this! 

I  have  still  another  complaint  against  this  fiction.  Were  it  ever  so 
plausible,  were  it  ever  so  probable,  it  is  utterly  valueless,  unless  it  is  in 
proof  from  Scripture.  The  writer  mistakes  the  burden  of  proof.  If  it 
is  not  proved  that  the  water  was  necessary  for  other  purposes,  there  lies 
no  objection  to  the  assertion,  that  it  was  necessary  for  baptism.  If  an 
objection  is  not  proved,  it  is  no  true  objection. 

Section  V. — With  respect  to  the  accounts  of  the  baptism  of  Christ, 
Matt.  iii.  6,  Mark  i.  9,  10,  he  rests  on  the  fact,  that  the  preposition  is 
from,  not  out  of.  Of  what  use  is  this,  when  we  have  out  of,  in  the  case 
of  the  eunuch?  When  he  translates  Mark  i.  9,  by  in  Jordan,  he  mis- 
translates. Jesus  was  baptized  into  Jordan.  This  shows  not  only  that 
the  action  of  the  verb  was  performed  in  the  water,  but  that  the  perform- 
ance of  it  was  a  putting  of  the  baptized  person  into  the  water.  Besides, 
if  the  ordinance  is  performed  in  the  water,  what  relief  does  the  writer 
get  from  the  preposition  from,  more  than  out  of?  If  Jesus  was  in  the 
water,  might  it  not  be  said  that  he  came  up  out  of  the  water,  as  well  as 
from  the  water? 

"  Laying  aside  his  sandals,"  says  Dr.  M., "  he  might  only  have  stepped 
a  few  inches  into  the  river."  What  could  take  him  into  the  river  at  all, 
if  he  was  only  to  be  sprinkled  ?  What  could  take  him  to  the  edge  of 
the  water  ?  What  could  take  him  to  the  river  ?  No  rational  answer  can 
ever  be  given  to  this,  on  the  ground  that  sprinkling  a  few  drops  of  water 
is  baptism.  Is  there  no  misgiving  of  conscience,  as  to  the  sufficiency 
of  this  answer?  I  could  not  believe  this,  should  I  gain  the  whole  world 
by  my  faith.  But  the  account  of  the  evangelist  not  merely  asserts  that 
Jesus  went  into  the  water,  but  that,  when  in  the  water,  he  was  baptized 
or  immersed  into  it. 

Section  VI. — "  The  baptism  of  Paul,"  Dr.  M.  asserts,  "  affords  not 
the  smallest  hint  or  presumption  in  favour  of  immersion."  If  he  means, 
that  the  account  affords  no  evidence,  unless  it  is  in  the  word,  he  says 
only  what  might  be  true  in  a  thousand  instances,  without  affecting  the 


374  REPLY    TO    DR.    MILLER. 

question.  No  other  evidence  but  that  of  the  word  is  necessary  in  any 
instance.  If  he  means,  that  without  evidence,  independent  of  the  word 
itself,  the  question  cannot  be  determined,  he  entertains  views  of  evidence 
fundamentally  erroneous.  When  the  meaning  of  a  word  is  ascertained, 
by  an  examination  of  its  occurrences  in  the  language,  it  may  be  applied 
with  the  utmost  confidence,  without  a  tittle  of  additional  evidence  from 
context.  Very  often  context  affords  no  confirmation  of  the  true  mean- 
ing. No  word  in  language  affords,  in  every  occurrence  of  it,  evidence 
of  its  meaning  from  context.  I  will  make  this  intelligible  to  every  child, 
if  men  will  shut  their  eyes.  In  reading  the  expression,  "Arise,  and  be 
immersed  or  dipped,"  would  any  Englishman  hesitate  as  to  the  mode 
expressed,  because  the  context  affords  no  evidence,  additional  to  that  of 
the  word  ?  And  what  evidence  would  a  person  who  understood  Greek 
have  needed,  in  addition  to  that  of  the  word  itself?  However,  in  the 
present  case,  it  is  not  fact  that  there  is  no  additional  evidence  from  the 
context :  there  is  most  satisfactory  proof,  even  if  the  word  itself  had 
been  used  but  once,  in  all  that  remains  of  the  Greek  language.  Baptism 
is  here  said  to  be  a  bathing  of  the  person. 

"  There  is  no  hint  that  Paul  changed  his  raimant."  No  more  is  there 
any  account  from  what  point  the  wind  blew  on  the  occasion.  Shame, 
shame,  to  trifle  in  this  way  in  opposing  the  ordinances  of  God !  How 
many  thousand  accounts  of  immersion  in  modern  times,  when  there  is 
no  mention  of  changing  of  raimant !  Does  Dr.  M.  really  expect,  that 
in  case  immersions  were  practised,  the  Scriptures  must  record  the  chang- 
ing of  dress  ?  Where  did  he  find  the  laying  of  the  sandals  aside,  which 
he  lately  mentioned  ?  Is  there  no  evidence  that  such  a  man  was  hanged, 
because  there  is  no  account  whether  he  wore  his  ordinary  dress,  or  ob- 
tained one  for  the  occasion?  There  may  be  honesty  in  this  sort  of 
reasoning,  but  there  is  no  logic. 

But  our  author  has  not  yet  done  with  this  species  of  logic.  "  There 
is  no  account,"  it  seems,  "  that  Paul  and  Ananias  went  out  of  the  house 
to  a  neighbouring  pond  or  stream."  What  need  of  such  information? 
When  I  hear  that  Dr.  M.  is  immersed  in  New  York,  I  shall  never  inquire 
whether  it  was  in  a  river,  in  a  pond,  or  in  a  bath.  Dr.  M.,  let  us  have 
every  thing  like  evidence ;  but  let  us  have  no  trifling  with  the  word  of 
the  living  God. 

Adverting  to  Paul's  situation,  he  asks,  "  Can  it  be  imagined  that  a 
wise  and  humane  man,  in  these  circumstances,  would  have  had  him  car- 
ried forth  and  plunged  into  cold  water?"  The  wisdom  and  humanity 
of  Ananias  had  nothing  to  do  in  the  matter;  he  had  the  express  com- 
mand of  God.  If  Dr.  M.  has  any  charge  against  the  wisdom  and 
humanity  of  the  institution,  no  doubt  its  Author,  in  due  time,  will  give 
him  a  sufficient  answer.  I  can,  however,  see  nothing  in  Paul's  situation 
that  would  render  immersion  either  dangerous  or  disagreeable.  But 
Paul  was  immersed,  whatever  Dr.  M.  may  choose  to  suppose  to  be  the 
consequence.  I  draw  a  different  conclusion.  If  Paul,  in  such  a  situa- 
tion, was  immersed,  clinical  sprinkling,  the  invention  of  human  wisdom, 
is  never  to  be  a  substitute  for  baptism. 


REPLY   TO    DR.    MILLER.  375 

Section  VII. — The  account  even  of  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch,  does 
not  convince  Dr.  M.  that  immersion  was  the  mode.  He  tells  us,  that 
"  they  were  travelling,  and  probably  destitute  of  any  convenient  vessel 
for  dipping  up  a  portion  of  water  from  the  stream  ;  they  both  went  down 
to  the  water,  probably  no  farther  than  to  its  margin,  far  enough  to  take 
up  a  small  portion  of  it,  to  sprinkle  or  pour  on  the  eunuch." 

How  can  he  assert,  that  probably  they  went  only  to  the  edge  of  the 
water,  when  the  Holy  Spirit  expressly  asserts  that  they  came  out  of  the 
water  ?  Does  Dr.  M.  intend  to  give  the  lie  to  the  word  of  inspiration  ? 
How  could  they  come  out  of  the  water,  if  they  were  not  in  it?  This 
fact  is  beyond  controversy.  But  is  it  not  extravagant  to  suppose  that 
such  a  man  as  the  eunuch,  on  his  journey,  had  no  vessel  fit  to  carry  as 
much  water  as  would  sprinkle  him  with  a  few  drops?  One  of  his 
attendants  might  have  brought  enough  in  the  hollow  of  his  hand.  Such 
evasions  are  ridiculous. 

While  I  admit  that  the  preposition  eis  may  convey  to  the  edge  of  the 
water,  as  well  as  into  it ;  yet  I  cannot  but  feel  surprised  that  Dr.  M.  is 
so  unfortunate  in  his  proofs.  "  Jesus  went  down  to  Capernaum,"  surely 
does  not  mean,  that  he  stopped  at  the  edge  of  the  city.  He  entered  into 
Capernaum.  "  Jacob  went  down  into  Egypt,"  does  not  mean  that  he 
stopped  at  the  borders  of  the  country.  "  He  went  down  to  Antioch,"  is 
a  similar  example.  Instead  of  proving  for  the  writer,  these  examples 
show  the  unreasonableness  of  his  doctrine.  Would  he  deserve  the  name 
of  a  critic,  who  should  argue,  that  because  the  preposition  in  question  is 
sometimes  used  when  the  object  in  motion  goes  only  to  the  edge  of  the 
object  approached,  therefore  in  the  example  there  is  no  evidence  that 
Jesus  entered  Capernaum,  that  Jacob  went  into  Egypt,  or  that  Paul 
entered  Antioch? 

Dr.  M.,  I  am  surprised  to  find,  repeats  the  objection,  that  "there  is 
the  same  evidence  that  Philip  was  plunged,  as  that  the  eunuch  was." 
This  was  a  very  shallow  observation.  There  is  the  same  evidence  that 
both  were  in  the  water,  but  only  one  of  them  is  said  to  have  been  im- 
mersed. Their  being  in  the  water  may  be  proof  that  immersion  must 
have  taken  place,  without  proving  that  both  were  immersed.  It  is  strange 
that  wise  men  will  risk  the  credit  of  their  understanding  by  such  allega- 
tions. 

Dr.  M.  concludes  his  observations  on  this  example,  by  asserting  that  the 
confidence  of  the  Baptists,  in  the  account  of  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch, 
"  must  be  regarded  as  amounting  to  a  gross  imposition  on  popular  cre- 
dulity." Dr.  M.  has  done  nothing  to  entitle  him  to  speak  so  arrogantly. 
He  has  done  nothing  to  diminish  our  confidence  in  this  example.  He 
has  not  entered  into  the  criticism  of  the  question.  Our  proof  that  they 
were  in  the  water  is  not  only  unrefuted,  but  unassailed  by  criticism. 
We  can  afford  to  leave  imposition  and  credulity  to  those  who  need  them. 

Section  VIII. — The  baptism  of  Cornelius  comes  next  under  the 
review  of  our  author.  Here  again  he  complains  of  the  absence  of  hints, 
with  respect  to  the  "  candidates  for  baptism  being  led  out  of  the  house, 
to  a  river  or  pool,  for  the  purpose  of  being  dipped."     Such  information 


376  REPLY   TO    DR.    MILLER. 

is  altogether  unnecessary.  If  they  were  baptized,  they  were  immersed. 
Whether  in  the  house  or  elsewhere,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  But  he 
can  find  not  only  hints,  but  full  evidence  on  his  side.  "  Who  can  forbid 
water?"  he  interprets,  "  Can  any  man  forbid  water  being  brought  in  a 
convenient  vessel,  to  be  applied  by  pouring  or  sprinkling?"  Can  any- 
thing be  more  arbitrary  and  unfounded  than  this  interpretation  ?  Can 
the  man  who  will  take  this  liberty  with  his  documents  ever  be  at  a  loss 
for  proof?  I  will  not  say,  that  this  is  imposition  on  credulity ;  but  I 
will  say,  that  this  is  not  interpretation.  Might  I  not  as  well  interpret 
the  passage  thus  ?  "  Can  any  man  forbid  water  to  be  brought  in  to  fill 
a  bath  for  the  purpose  of  immersion  V  But  I  scorn  such  a  mode  of 
interpretation  to  suit  a  purpose.  The  expression  has  no  concern  at  all 
with  the  mode  of  the  ordinance.  The  meaning  most  evidently  is,  "  Can 
any  one  forbid  baptism  with  respect  to  these  persons  ?"  The  passage 
determines  nothing  as  to  what  baptism  is,  only  that  water  is  employed  in 
the  ordinance.  If  we  take  the  liberty  of  forging  an  addition  to  our 
documents,  in  order  to  suit  our  purpose,  we  cannot  pretend  to  ground 
on  the  Scriptures. 

But  if  this  passage  affords  evidence  that  the  mode  of  this  ordinance 
is  pouring  or  sprinkling,  and  that,  too,  for  an  emblematical  purpose, 
how  is  it  that  the  author  allows  that  immersion  is  also  a  valid  mode  of 
the  ordinance?     If  this  is  true,  immersion  cannot  be  baptism. 

Section.  IX. — The  immersion  of  the  jailer  Dr.  M.  pronounces  not 
only  to  be  improbable,  but  impossible.  Here  now  we  have  an  assertion 
that  gives  us  an  opportunity  of  estimating  Dr.  M.'s  perspicacity  in 
weighing  evidence,  or  his  candour  in  representing  it.  On  what  ground 
does  he  allege  immersion  to  have  been  here  impossible,  or  even  impro- 
bable? "  Paul  and  Silas,"  he  tells  us,  "  were  closely  confined  in  prison 
when  this  solemn  service  was  performed."  Your  documents  have  not 
told  you  so,  Dr.  M.  They  were  not  now  closely  confined,  nor  confined 
at  all,  even  although  the  baptism  had  been  performed  in  the  prison. 
What  makes  immersion  impossible,  even  in  the  very  cell  in  which  they 
were  closely  confined?  The  man  who  asserts  impossibility  as  to  im- 
mersion even  on  that  ground,  I  charge  as  unfit  to  weigh  evidence. 

Again,  when  he  expounds  the  bringing  of  them  out,  as  respecting  the 
outer  part  of  the  prison,  and  not  the  outside  of  it,  granting  this  to  be 
true,  what  makes  immersion  impossible  in  that  place  ?  No  thinking  being 
can  allege  impossibility.  But  if  my  cause  required  it,  I  would  not  grant 
this.  Dr.  M.  must  prove  it  before  it  can  serve  him.  The  burden  of  proof 
lies  on  the  objector.  If  it  is  not  proved  that  out  refers  to  the  outer  prison, 
and  not  to  outside  the  prison,  it  cannot  stand  as  an  objection.  If  the  word 
out  will  explain  as  referable  to  either,  I  am  at  liberty  to  explain  it  in  the 
way  that  the  word  employed  to  designate  the  ordinance  demands. 

But  that  out  refers  to  outside  the  prison  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that 
we  find  them  immediately  in  the  jailer's  house.  Paul  preached  the 
Gospel  to  all  in  the  jailer's  house  before  any  of  them  were  baptized. 
There  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  that  the  baptism  was  in  the  jail.  It 
was  after  this  they  were  bathed ;  the  bathing,  then,  must  have  been 


REPLY    TO    DR.    MILLER.  377 

done  in  the  house :  and  if  they  could  be  bathed  in  the  house,  could  not 
the  jailer  and  his  family  be  bathed  in  baptism  in  the  same  bath  ?  The 
performance  of  bathing  implies  the  existence  of  a  bath. 

But  had  the  jailer  been  as  destitute  of  baths  as  John  the  Baptist  was 
of  vessels  for  sprinkling,  what  could  prevent  them  from  going  to  the 
Strymon?  Must  they  wait  for  permission  from  the  magistrates  ?  Not  a 
moment.  In  civil  things  Christians  are  to  obey,  but  in  the  things  of 
God  they  are  to  have  no  respect  to  the  authority  of  man.  Dr.  M.  speaks 
of  Paul  and  Silas  as  not  being  "  dishonest  enough  to  steal  out  of  prison 
by  night !"  Is  so  slavish  a  sentiment  worthy  of  an  American  citizen  ? 
Is  so  Erastian  a  sentiment  worthy  of  a  Christian,  even  in  Turkey  ? 
No  man  can  carry  the  duty  of  civil  obedience  farther  than  I  do ;  but 
I  would  frown  defiance  in  the  face  of  Majesty  were  it  to  presume  to 
dictate  in  the  things  of  Christ.  According  to  Dr.  M.,  Peter  was  guilty 
of  stealing  out  of  prison,  when  he  was  released  by  the  angel,  and  the 
angel  was  guilty  of  a  treasonable  rescue. 

The  refusal  to  quit  the  prison  next  morning  was  not  out  of  obedience 
to  civil  authority,  but  from  a  just  and  indignant  sense  of  their  own 
violated  rights.  How  could  it  be  for  conscience'  sake  that  they  refused 
to  quit  the  prison,  when  the  magistrates  sent  an  express  order  by  their 
officers,  urging  them  to  go  ?  It  is  astonishing  that  any  writer  should 
venture  such  observations. 

Equally  astonishing  it  is  that  Dr.  M.  should  allege  the  jailer's  alarm 
on  account  of  his  own  responsibility.  Was  not  this  alarm  previous  to 
his  faith  and  baptism?  Had  he  any  such  fears  afterwards?  Besides, 
if  it  was  contrary  to  Paul's  duty  to  baptize  the  jailer's  family  at  the 
river,  it  was  equally  contrary  to  his  duty  to  accept  hospitality  in  the 
jailer's  house.  If  they  had  a  right  to  quit  the  prison,  they  had  a  right 
to  go  to  the  river.  What  a  scrupulous  conscience  has  Dr.  M. !  I  sup- 
pose if  the  government  of  the  United  States  were  to  forbid  him  to 
preach,  he  would  never  open  his  mouth  to  proclaim  the  glad  tidings  of 
salvation.  Am  I  to  believe  that  any  man  really  feels  these  scruples,  or 
am  I  to  think  that  they  are  mere  evasions?  Were  I  to  use  such  argu- 
ments, I  must  confess  it  would  be  from  a  design  of  imposing  on  popular 
credulity. 

With  respect  to  the  possibility  of  immersion  in  the  prison,  Dr.  M. 
says,  "  He  who  can  believe  this  must  be  ready  to  adopt  any  supposition, 
however  extravagant,  for  the  sake  of  an  hypothesis."  This  shows  the 
distinguished  writer  to  be  unacquainted  with  the  fundamental  laws  of 
controversy.  We  have  neither  to  prove  nor  suppose  anything  with 
respect  to  the  way  in  which  immersion  was  possible.  If  the  word  is 
proved  to  mean  immersion,  whenever  there  was  a  baptism,  there  must 
have  been  a  way  of  immersion.  Any  objection  that  is  alleged  against 
the  possibility  of  this  must  be  in  proof.  Granting  that  the  baptism  was 
performed  in  the  jail,  without  any  mention  of  a  bath,  I  should  have 
every  confidence  of  immersion,  equally  as  if  I  had  been  told  that  there 
was  a  bath,  or  a  reservoir.  Suppose  we  read  in  English  that  the  Bap- 
tists immersed  a  person  in  a  jail,  would  any  man  act  so  ridiculously  as 
to  deny  the  immersion  unless  the  bath  were  spoken  of?     Why,  then, 

48 


378  REPLY   TO    DR.    MILLER. 

should  the  mention  of  a  bath,  or  a  pond,  or  of  a  river,  be  necessary  as 
to  the  examples  in  Scripture?  However,  I  can  prove  that  there  was  a 
bath  in  the  jailer's  house,  because  that  Paul  and  Silas  were  bathed ;  but 
I  refuse  to  give  proof  as  a  matter  of  right :  it  is  all  mere  grace.  I  will 
never  consent  to  prove,  when  proof  lies  on  the  other  side.  What  does 
this  writer  mean  by  an  hypothesis?  We  interpret  language  by  its  funda- 
mental laws:  we  do  not,  invent  hypotheses.  If  the  word  does  not  signify 
immerse,  we  will  invent  no  hypothesis  to  provide  for  immersion.  But 
while  I  have  provided  a  bath  in  the  house,  I  am  inclined  to  think  that 
the  document  proves  that  the  baptism  was  without.  Paul  preached  in 
the  jailer's  house,  and,  after  the  baptism,  was  brought  back  to  the  house, 
which  appears  to  show  that  the  baptism  was  either  at  the  Strymon,  or 
some  other  place  out  of  doors.  But  I  care  not  where  the  baptism  took 
place,  and  I  will  pledge  myself  for  nothing  on  this  head. 

Section  X. — Dr.  M.  complains  of  the  Baptists,  that  they  consider 
their  mode  as  essential  to  the  ordinance.  This  complaint,  surely,  is 
absurd.  If  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  immerse,  is  not  immersion  essential 
to  immersion?  Can  pouring  or  sprinkling,  $u\ft\  a  command  to  immerse? 
Especially  if  immersion  is  emblematical,  must  it  not  be  essential  to  have 
the  emblem?  We  grant  that  our  opponents  are  sincere;  that  they 
believe  that  they  are  fulfilling  the  command  of  Christ ;  but,  if  our  view 
of  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  just,  we  should  be  palpably  self-condemned, 
were  we  to  say  that  pouring,  or  sprinkling  is  baptism.  In  like  manner, 
if  any  man  believes  that  the  word  signifies  to  pour,  or  sprinkle,  and  that 
the  ordinance  is  emblematical  in  such  a  sense,  he  cannot  consistently 
admit  that  any  other  mode  is  baptism.  Of  all  the  writers  I  have  ever 
met,  Dr.  M.  is,  on  this  point,  the  most  inconsistent.  He  makes  the  mode 
emblematical,  yet  he  allows  that  any  mode  is  baptism.  He  has  two 
favourite  modes,  yet  he  does  not  say  that  either  of  them  is  appointed. 
He  makes  the  word  signify  immerse,  pour,  sprinkle,  dye,  wash,  and 
every  application  of  water;  yet  I  cannot  gather  from  him  what  meaning 
he  gives  it  in  this  ordinance.  He  tells  us  that  "  The  inspired  writers 
did  not  deem  the  mode  of  applying  water  in  baptism  an  essential  matter; 
and  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  state  it  precisely."  What,  then,  is  the 
meaning  of  the  word  ?  It  cannot  be  pour,  or  sprinkle,  for  this  is  as 
precise  as  immersion.  If  it  expresses  no  mode,  why  does  he  make  the 
mode  emblematical  ?  Has  he  got  a  patent  to  manufacture  emblems  for 
the  ordinances  of  Christ?  Here  he  avows  the  authority  of  will-worship, 
and  considers  it  lawful  and  edifying  to  conform  Christian  rites  to  emblem- 
atical representations,  not  annexed  to  them  by  the  Head  of  the  church. 
This  is  as  pure  a  specimen  of  Popery  as  ever  was  manufactured  at  Rome. 

As,  in  its  common  use,  Dr.  M.  makes  this  word  signify  every  mode, 
and  every  application  of  water,  without  saying  what  is  its  meaning,  I 
must  believe  that  in  reference  to  this  ordinance  he  gives  it  the  same 
extent.  Now,  nothing  can  be  more  extravagant  than  this.  Whatever 
number  of  meanings  the  word  may  be  supposed  to  have,  it  can  have 
only  one  in  reference  to  this  ordinance,  whether  that  may  be  general  or 
specific.    If  it  has  a  general  signification  in  reference  to  baptism,  it  can- 


REPLY    TO    DR.    MILLER.  379 

not  also  have  a  specific  signification.  If  it  has  one  specific  signification, 
it  cannot  have  another.  I  really  think  criticism  wasted  on  such  reason- 
ing as  this. 

Section  XI. — The  following  extract  shows  that  the  clearest  and  most 
overwhelming  proof  of  the  original  mode  of  this  ordinance,  even  when 
admitted,  would  not  change  the  practice  of  our  opponents.  Dr.  M. 
arrogates  the  anti-christian  authority  of  changing  the  mode  of  the  ordi- 
nances of  Christ,  according  to  expediency.  "  Even  if  it  could  be  proved 
(which  we  know  it  cannot  be)  that  the  mode  of  baptism  adopted  in  the 
time  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  was  that  of  immersion,  yet,  if  that 
method  of  administering  the  ordinance  were  not  significant  of  some 
truth,  which  the  other  modes  cannot  represent,  we  are  plainly  at  liberty 
to  regard  it  as  a  non-essential  circumstance,  from  which  we  may  depart 
when  expediency  requires  it,  as  we  are  all  wont  to  do  in  other  cases, 
even  with  respect  to  positive  institutions."  Popery,  I  see,  is  not  confined 
to  Rome.  But  the  church  of  Rome  is  the  only  consistent  body  that 
claims  the  authority  of  changing  the  laws  of  God.  If  the  author 
believes  his  own  doctrine,  why  has  he  employed  so  much  straining  and 
torture  on  the  documents  that  respect  this  ordinance  ?  The  church  of 
Rome  claims  a  right  to  change  the  mode,  and  it  boldly  confesses  that  it 
has  done  so.  Dr.  M.  alleges  that  we  are  all  wont  to  do  the  same  thing.  For 
myself,  I  deny  the  charge  in  every  instance.  I  would  as  soon  attempt 
to  regulate  the  changes  of  the  moon,  or  alter  the  course  of  nature,  as 
make  the  smallest  modification  on  an  ordinance  of  Christ.  This  prin- 
ciple is  the  very  foundation  of  the  anti-christian  system  :  this  principle 
I  abhor  with  the  most  perfect  abhorrence.  Dr.  M.,  no  doubt,  is  con- 
scientious in  this;  but  is  not  the  Pope  equally  conscientious,  while,  with 
more  grace,  he  exercises  the  same  privilege  to  a  greater  extent? 

"For  example,"  says  he,  "the  Lord's  supper  was,  no  doubt,  originally 
instituted  with  unleavened  bread,"  &c.  Now  the  cases  are  not  at  all 
parallel.  Unleavened  bread  was  never  appointed.  It  was  used  merely 
on  the  occasion  because  it  was  the  bread  that  was  present.  Indeed,  it 
is  not  even  said  that  it  was  unleavened  bread ;  we  know  that  it  was  so, 
because  there  was  no  other.  Is  that  anything  akin  to  a  command  to 
baptize?  If  this  word  signifies  to  immerse,  then  immersion  is  the  very 
thing  commanded.  A  good  conscience  is  a  good  thing;  but  the  best 
conscience  is  the  better  for  a  little  discrimination.  Nothing  that  was  at 
first  a  part  of  the  Lord's  supper  can  ever  cease  to  be  a  part  of  it.  Had 
unleavened  bread  been  here  enjoined,  unleavened  bread  must  be  used  to 
the  end  of  the  world.  The  same  observation  applies  to  the  posture  at 
the  Lord's  supper.  Had  Christ  enjoined  kneeling  or  sitting,  reclining 
or  standing,  that  posture  would  be  always  binding.  As  it  is,  posture  is 
no  part  of  the  institution,  and  it  is  anti-christian  to  make  it  necessary. 

Dr.  M.  next  considers  the  difficulties  attending  immersion  in  many 
cases ;  and  contrasts  with  this  the  ease  and  convenience  of  sprinkling, 
or  pouring.  This  might  be  very  much  to  the  point,  after  a  proclamation 
from  heaven  that  we  might  choose  what  pleases  us  best.  But,  in  deter- 
mining what  is  the  law  of  Christ,  such  speculations  are  worse  than 


380  REPLY   TO   DR.    MILLER. 

useless :  they  are  an  exhortation  to  disobedience  and  rebellion.  To  be 
immersed  every  day  in  my  life  would  be  no  sacrifice  to  me ;  shall  I 
complain  about  one  immersion  in  my  whole  life  ? 

He  speaks  of  some  districts  so  parched  that  it  would  be  difficult  to 
find  a  natural  stream  or  pool.  What  makes  either  a  stream  or  a  pool 
necessary.  There  is  no  inhabited  country  in  which  a  disciple  of  Christ 
may  not  procure  as  much  water  as  will  immerse  him  once  in  his  life. 
He  speaks  of  a  siege.  If  a  man  cannot  get  bread,  is  he  guilty  in  dying 
of  hunger  ?  If  a  disciple  cannot  get  water,  is  he  guilty  for  not  attend- 
ing to  baptism?  Baptism  is  an  ordinance  of  Christ — an  edifying  ordi- 
nance of  Christ,  but  it  is  superstition  that  makes  it  essential  to  salvation. 
He  speaks  of  cold  countries,  where  rivers  are  locked  up  with  ice.  Is 
there  any  habitable  country  where  the  water  is  all  turned  into  ice  ?  Is 
there  any  country  in  which  ice  may  not  be  melted  by  fire  ?  How  per- 
versely opposed  is  the  human  mind  to  the  mind  of  God,  when  the 
disciple  of  Christ  can  allege  such  evasions  to  relieve  him  from  his  com- 
mandments! 

He  speaks  of  health.  When  medical  skill  pronounces  it  dangerous, 
I  will  not  urge  it :  nor  will  I  urge  a  sick  man  to  go  to  the  assembly  of 
the  saints.  He  speaks  about  old,  feeble  ministers.  This  is  young,  strong 
superstition.  If  ministers  are  old  and  feeble,  let  them  do  what  they  are 
fit  to  do ;  let  others  take  the  water.  The  churches  planted  by  the  apostles 
were  not  Puseyites.  No  wonder  that  the  Oxford  pestilence  has  spread 
so  rapidly :  there  is  almost  in  all  men  a  predisposition  to  the  disease. 

Section  XII. — Dr.  M.  tells  us,  that  in  the  third,  fourth,  and  following 
centuries,  the  custom  was  to  baptize  naked.  Where  is  the  logic  of  this  ? 
It  is  Satan's  logic  to  deter  the  disciples  of  Christ  from  following  their 
Master.  Although  this  logic  will  have  no  effect  upon  a  sound  head,  it 
may  not  be  without  its  effect  upon  a  corrupt  heart.  Dr.  M.  does  not 
pretend  to  say  that  the  apostles  baptized  naked.  Of  what  use,  then,  is 
his  observation  ?  Is  church  history  a  ground  of  proof  to  us  ?  Let  him 
admonish  the  Puseyites  on  this  subject,  and  they  will  very  likely  return 
to  the  old  edifying  practice.  This  practice  was  a  human  invention,  as 
Dr.  Hall  himself  confesses,  to  make  the  ordinance  of  Christ  more  edify- 
ing, just  as  Dr.  M.  annexes  an  edifying  emblem  to  pouring  and 
sprinkling,  while  he  confesses  that  Christ  has  not  appointed  the  emblem. 
The  above  practice,  then,  has  no  charms  for  us,  but  it  must  be  very 
edifying  to  Dr.  M.'s  turn  of  mind.  The  Christians  who  practised  this 
"  thought  it  better  represented  the  putting  off  the  old  man,  and  also  the 
nakedness  of  Christ  on  the  cross."  A  perfect  parallel  to  Dr.  M.'s  edify- 
ing emblems  of  pouring  and  sprinkling.  For  a  like  edifying  purpose 
the  early  Christians  practised  trine  immersion.  Is  this  proof  that  trine 
immersion  is  proper  ?  A  good  conscience  is  a  good  thing ;  but  a  good 
conscience  may  be  married  to  very  bad  logic. 

"Besides,"  says  Dr.  M.,  "if  the  principle  for  which  our  Baptist 
brethren  contend  be  correct;  if  the  immersion  of  the  whole  body  be 
essential  to  Christian  baptism ;  and  if  the  thing  signified  be  the  cleansing 
and  purifying  of  the  individual  by  an  ablution  which  must  of  necessity 


REPLY    TO    DR.    MILLER.  381 

extend  to  the  whole  person ;  it  would  really  seem  that  performing  this 
ceremony  divested  of  all  clothing,  is  essential  to  its  emblematic  mean- 
ing." To  this  I  reply :  1.  The  principle  here  represented  is  not  the 
ground  on  which  we  rest  immersion.  We  rest  it  on  the  command  of 
Christ;  not  on  views  of  peculiar  fitness  for  emblematic  representation. 
Its  emblematic  meaning  affords  us  edification,  but  is  not  the  ground  of 
our  obedience.  2.  The  immersion  of  the  whole  body  is  essential  to 
baptism,  not  because  nothing  but  immersion  can  be  an  emblem  of  puri- 
fication, but  because  immersion  is  the  thing  commanded,  and  because 
that,  without  immersion,  there  is  no  emblem  of  death,  burial,  and  resur- 
rection, which  are  in  the  emblem  equally  with  purification.  Had  no 
emblem  but  that  of  purification  been  intended  in  this  ordinance,  we  do 
not  say  that  immersion  would  be  either  essential  or  preferable.  In  a 
partial  ablution  there  might  be  an  emblem  of  purification,  but  no  emblem 
of  death,  burial,  and  resurrection.  If  the  whole  person  must  be  buried, 
the  whole  person  must,  of  course,  be  washed,  when  the  burial  is  in 
water.  3.  Dr.  M.  ought  to  know  that  nakedness  is  not  necessary  for 
emblematical  purification.  Were  not  the  Israelites  sprinkled  with  their 
garments  on  ?  Besides,  are  not  Christians  said  to  wash  their  garments, 
as  well  as  themselves,  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  ?  Even  in  bathing  for 
health  or  cleanliness,  it  is  common  to  use  a  bathing  dress.  Nakedness 
is  necessary  neither  for  the  emblem  nor  for  obedience  to  the  command. 
It  was  the  invention  of  the  same  spirit  that  has  changed  all  the  ordi- 
nances of  Chiist. 

He  speaks  of  the  propriety  of  applying  the  water  "  to  that  part  of  the 
body  which  is  an  epitome  of  the  whole  person."  Who  has  commanded 
this?  Has  Christ  given  authority  to  add  to  his  ordinance  by  human 
wisdom  ?  This  is  the  prerogative  of  the  man  of  sin.  Is  not  this  manu- 
facture from  the  same  factory  that  applies  the  holy  unction  to  certain 
parts  of  the  body  for  emblematic  purposes?  Nothing  can  be  more  evi- 
dent than  that,  as  no  part  of  the  body  is  by  inspiration  spoken  of  as  hav- 
ing the  water  of  baptism  applied  to  it,  the  whole  body  must  be  immersed. 

"■  Besides,"  says  the  author,  "  let  me  appeal  to  our  Baptist  brethren, 
by  asking,  if  they  verily  believe  that  the  primitive  and  apostolic  mode 
of  administering  baptism  was  by  immersion,  and  that  this  immersion 
was  by  entire  nakedness,  how  can  they  dare,  upon  their  principles,  to 
depart  one  iota  from  that  mode?"  I  will  not  say  that  there  is  anything 
intentionally  unfair  in  this ;  but  I  will  say,  that  the  reasoning  is  unfair. 
He  here  speaks  as  if  he  had  proved,  and  that  the  Baptists  believe,  that 
naked  baptism  was  an  apostolic  practice.  Neither  of  these  is  true.  He 
stated  merely  the  practice  of  the  third,  fourth,  and  immediately  succeed- 
ing centuries.  And  why  does  he  assume  that  the  Baptists  believe  that 
naked  baptism  was  the  practice  of  the  apostles  ?  Why  urge  them  on 
this  ground  ?  Is  the  practice  of  the  third,  fourth,  and  immediately  suc- 
ceeding centuries,  to  be  taken  as  the  primitive  and  apostolic  practice? 
I  can  see  no  way  to  vindicate  both  his  sincerity  and  his  logic. 

From  these  difficulties  he  is  convinced  that  immersion  "cannot  be  of 
Divine  appointment;  at  any  rate,  that  it  cannot  be  universally  binding 
on  the  church  of  God."  Whether  it  is  a  Divine  appointment  depends  on 


382  REPLY    TO    DR.    MILLER. 

evidence,  and  is  not  at  all  influenced  by  the  existence  of  difficulties. 
But  what  a  sentiment  is  here  expressed !  A  Divine  appointment,  yet  not 
universally  binding ! ! !  Then  we  cannot  have  a  pope  too  soon.  If 
Divine  appointments  may  be  annulled,  infallibility  is  necessary  to  annul 
them.  Who  can  put  a  limit  to  the  extent  to  which  this  principle  may  be 
carried?  May  it  not  set  aside  the  ordinance  of  baptism  itself,  and  all 
other  ordinances?  May  it  not  appoint  as  many  other  ordinances  as  it 
may  think  fit?  Let  Dr.  M.  reflect  on  the  denunciation  against  those 
who  take  on  them  to  abrogate  any  of  God's  appointments.  "  Whoso- 
ever, therefore,  shall  abrogate  one  of  these  least  commandments,  and 
teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
Great  Jesus,  enable  me  to  suffer  martyrdom,  rather  than  give  me  up  to 
utter  a  sentiment  so  dishonourable  to  thy  sovereignty  !  Dr.  M.  avows  a 
right  to  change  ordinances  of  Christ,  and  to  confer  on  them  an  emblem- 
atic meaning,  not  in  the  appointment  of  the  Institutor.  What  is  popery, 
if  this  is  not  popery?  To  practise  immersion  conscientiously,  even 
although  a  Divine  appointment,  he  designates  as  servility  and  supersti- 
tion. Servility  and  superstition !  What  a  prostitution  of  language ! 
Servility,  to  obey  a  Divine  appointment !  Superstition,  to  practise  what 
God  commands !  This  is  so  monstrous  in  sentiment,  so  paradoxical  in 
phraseology,  that  I  dare  not  trust  myself  to  say  more  on  it. 

"  We  may  say  of  this  ordinance,"  says  the  author,  "  as  our  Lord  said 
of  the  sabbath,  Baptism  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  baptism." 
I  adopt  the  language  with  my  whole  heart.  We  may  say  this  with 
respect  to  every  ordinance.  But  does  this  imply  that  we  may  abrogate, 
alter,  or  modify,  either  baptism  or  the  sabbath?  Let  us  apply  this  prin- 
ciple, then,  to  the  sabbath,  which  Dr.  M.  applies  to  baptism.  "  The 
keeping  of  the  sabbath  has  great  inconveniences  in  many  places :  either, 
then,  it  is  not  a  Divine  appointment,  or,  at  any  rate,  it  is  not  universally 
binding."  Is  this  Dr.  M.'s  theology  ?  Many  persons  will  shudder  at  it, 
when  applied  to  the  sabbath,  who  may  not  be  frightened  when  it  is 
applied  to  an  ordinance  against  which  they  are  prejudiced.  How  is  it, 
that  such  a  man  as  Dr.  M.  can  assume  it  as  a  principle,  that  if  an  ordi- 
nance is  made  for  the  good  of  man  by  Divine  appointment,  men  must 
have  the  right  of  changing  it?  Is  man  fitter  than  God,  to  judge  what 
is  best  for  man  ?  Is  not  the  fact,  that  God's  ordinances  are  all  designed 
for  the  good  of  his  people,  the  strongest  reason  to  abide  strictly  by  them? 
I  complain,  that  in  this  work  there  is  a  want  of  accurate  thinking,  of 
just  reasoning,  and  of  sound  principles.  In  justice  to  truth,  I. must  say 
so,  while  it  grieves  me  to  be  obliged  to  give  it  expression. 

"  Where,"  says  he,  "  a  particular  mode  of  complying  with  a  religious 
observance  would  be,  in  may  cases,  '  a  yoke  of  bondage,'  and  one,  too, 
for  which  no  Divine  warrant  could  be  pleaded,  it  would  argue  the  very 
slavery  of  superstition,  to  enforce  that  mode  of  the  observance  as  essential 
to  a  regular  standing  in  the  visible  family  of  Christ."  Here  my  com- 
plaint of  a  want  of  accurate  thinking  is  renewed.  If  a  yoke  is  of  God's 
making,  must  it  not  be  worn  ?  If  it  is  not  of  God's  appointment,  does 
any  one  require  it  to  be  put  on  ?  Was  not  circumcision  a  yoke?  Had 
any  man  a  right  to  abrogate  or  neglect  it  ?     We  are  commanded  to 


REPLY    TO    DR.    MILLER.  383 

give  our  lives  for  Christ,  rather  than  deny  him.  Has  any  man  a  right 
to  refuse  this  yoke?  But  there  is  no  yoke  in  baptism,  although  my 
defence  of  it  will  not  deign  to  repel  the  charge.  It  is  God's  appoint- 
ment :  I  call  on  Christians,  on  their  allegiance,  to  obey. 

That  immersion  is  a  Divine  appointment  tin's  argument  assumes,  for 
it  pleads  for  a  right  to  change  a  Divine  appointment.  Now  is  it  the 
slavery  of  superstition  to  obey  a  Divine  appointment  I  Superstition  and 
slavery  must  respect  such  religious  ordinances  only  as  are  of  human 
appointment.  It  is  absurd — it  is  monstrous — it  is  blasphemous,  to 
speak  of  obedience  to  a  Divine  appointment  as  the  slavery  of  superstition. 

But  if  it  is  a  Divine  appointment,  how  can  it  be  also  "  a  yoke  of 
bondage,"  "  for  which  no  Divine  warrant  could  be  pleaded?"  If  no 
Divine  warrant  can  be  pleaded,  it  cannot  be  a  Divine  appointment.  But 
there  is  still  another  absurdity  in  this.  On  the  supposition  that  no 
Divine  warrant  can  be  pleaded  for  immersion,  does  any  one  make  it 
essential  to  baptism?  Surely  it  is  only  on  the  ground  that  there  is  a 
Divine  warrant,  that  it  is  deemed  essential,  or  even  in  any  degree  obli- 
gatory. Why,  then,  does  this  learned  writer  beat  the  air  ?  Why  does 
he  reason  with  people  who  never  have  existed  ? 

Section  XIII. — Dr.  M.  comes  now  to  Rom.  vi.  1.  He  observes, 
that  we  believe  and  insist  that  baptism  and  immersion  are  synonymous 
terms.  We  believe  and  insist  that  immersion  is  the  meaning  of  the 
word  translated  baptism,  but  we  do  not  believe  that  baptism,  as  an  Eng- 
lish word,  is  synonymous  with  immersion.  As  an  English  term  it 
respects  not  mode  at  all,  but  refers  to  what  is  considered  the  rite,  apart 
from  the  mode.  In  English,  baptism  and  immersion  are  anything  rather 
than  synonymous. 

Believing  and  insisting  as  above,  we  are  represented  by  him  as  taking 
for  granted  that  the  phrase,  "  buried  with  him  in  baptism,"  refers  to  the 
resemblance  between  baptism  and  burial.  Now  we  believe  that  this 
phrase  implies  this  resemblance,  not  by  taking  it  for  granted,  but  as 
the  necessary  import  of  the  expression.  When  our  Lord  says,  "  This 
cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my  blood,"  is  it  taking  anything  for  granted, 
to  assert  that  the  expression  implies  that  there  is  a  resemblance  between 
the  wine  and  the  blood  of  Christ?  We  take  nothing  for  granted  but 
what  is  either  in  proof,  or  is  self-evident. 

He  observes,  that  "  in  the  general  interpretation  of  the  figure,  many 
paedo-baptists  are  agreed  with  us,  and  have  thus  not  a  little  confirmed 
the  confidence  of  anti-paedo-baptists  in  their  cause."  Is  not  this  a  hint, 
that  even  though  paedo-baptists  should  agree  with  us  in  this,  it  is  bad 
policy  to  acknowledge  it?  On  the  other  hand  I  ask,  are  there  no  paedo- 
baptists,  who,  from  a  fear  of  increasing  the  confidence  of  their  opponents, 
are  willing  to  dispute  every  thing?  Excessive  candour  is  not,  as  far  as 
I  have  observed,  the  fault  of  any  of  the  late  writers  on  the  subject.  Tt 
would  hardly  surprise  me  if  some  of  them  would  call  on  us  to  prove  the 
existence  of  the  river  Jordan.  It  is  quite  true  that  all  eminent  scholars, 
whatever  may  be  their  practice,  if  they  speak  at  all  on  the  subject,  will 
confess  as  plainly  as  prudence  will  permit  them,  that  we  have  both  the 


384  REPLY    TO    DR.    MILLER. 

meaning  of  the  word  and  the  inspired  explanation  of  the  mode  in  our 
favour.  But  even  this  we  produce  not  as  a  confirmation  of  our  own 
faith,  but  as  a  proof  that  our  view  of  the  emblem  is  irresistible  to  our 
candid  opponents.  Who  is  it  that  does  not  perceive  that  Dr.  M.  feels 
this  affliction  ?  But  the  thing  is  so  plain  in  itself,  that  if  all  the  men  on 
earth  should  deny  it,  I  could  not  think  of  it  otherwise  than  as  I  do.  And 
if  all  psedo-baptists  should  be  convinced  by  myself,  I  could  not  receive 
the  smallest  additional  confidence.  Dr.  Campbell,  indeed,  observes,  that 
in  a  long  process  of  abstract  reasoning,  even  in  matters  of  demonstra- 
tion, a  person  will  find  additional  confidence  by  the  agreement  of  others 
whose  judgment  he  respects.  With  this  I  fully  agree.  But  there  is  here 
no  intricate  or  tedious  process  of  thought.  Any  one  who  understands 
the  words,  will  be  able  to  discern  the  assertion  as  clearly  as  Newton  or 
Locke.  Buried  with  Christ  by  baptism,  must  mean  that  baptism  has  a 
resemblance  to  Christ's  burial.  Were  the  angel  Gabriel  to  hesitate, 
I  would  order  him  to  school.  In  many  cases  of  error  I  can  see  the 
plausible  ground  on  which  it  rests ;  but  here  I  can  perceive  no  den  in 
which  deception  can  be  concealed. 

"  The  apostle,"  says  the  writer,  "  then  adverts  to  the  significance  of 
baptism,  which  being  the  ordinance  which  seals  our  introduction  into 
the  family  of  Christ,  may  be  considered  as  exhibiting  both  the  first 
principles  of  Gospel  truth,  and  the  first  elements  of  Christian  character." 
Now  what  a  mass  of  lumber  is  this!  Does  the  apostle  say  anything 
about  baptism  as  being  the  ordinance  which  seals  our  introduction  into 
the  family  of  Christ?  Does  he  say  anything  about  it  as  a  seal  of  intro- 
duction, exhibiting  an  emblem  of  first  principles?  Baptism  is  not  here, 
spoken  of  as  a  seal  of  introduction,  nor  as  a  seal  of  anything ;  it  is 
spoken  of  as  importing  in  its  nature  an  emblem  that  believers  cannot 
continue  in  sin  that  grace  may  abound.  The  emblem  shows  them  to  be 
dead,  buried,  and  risen  with  Christ.  How,  then,  can  they  continue  in 
sin?  This  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  take  place  in  baptism:  if 
so,  they  take  place  emblematically. 

"  He  then  infers,"  says  the  author,  "  that  since  baptism  has  so  imme- 
diate a  reference  to  the  death  of  Christ,  it  must,  by  consequence,  be 
connected  also  with  his  resurrection."  Immediate  connexion  with  his 
resurrection  !  This  cloud  of  words  is  to  hide  the  sun.  What  connexion 
has  baptism  with  Christ's  burial  ?  Is  it  not  because  it  is  a  burial  with 
Christ  ?  What  other  reference  is  either  stated  or  hinted  ?  But  there  is 
no  such  reference  in  the  language  of  the  apostle,  as  Dr.  M.  represents. 
The  apostle  does  not  infer  that  since  baptism  has  an  immediate  reference 
to  the  death  of  Christ,  it  must,  by  consequence,  be  connected  also  with 
the  resurrection.  It  is  a  fact  that  baptism  actually  refers  as  well  to  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  as  to  his  death.  But  the  apostle  states  the  two 
things  as  facts,  and  does  not  infer  one  of  them  from  the  other.  There 
might  have  been  an  ordinance  having  reference  to  the  burial  of  Christ, 
without  having  any  reference  to  his  resurrection.  The  language  of 
the  apostle  does  not  infer,  but  it  asserts.  "  For  if  we  have  been 
planted,"  &,c. 

"  The  obvious  design  of  the  apostle,"  says  Dr.  M.,  "  is  to  illustrate  the 


REPLY    TO    DR.    MILLER.  385 

character  and  obligations  of  believers,  from  the  circumstance  that  they 
are  in  a  certain  respect  conformed  to  Christ's  death ;  that  as  he  died  for 
sin,  so  they  are  dead,  or  are  under  an  obligation  to  be  dead  to  sin,  that 
is,  they  are  holy,  or  are  by  their  profession  obliged  to  be  holy."  If  any 
man  is  now  ignorant  of  the  obvious  design  of  the  apostle  in  this  passage, 
he  would  not  deserve  pity  were  he  not  to  see  the  sun  at  noon-day.  Yet 
after  reading,  and  reading,  and  reading,  I  am  so  far  from  knowing  the 
obvious  design  of  the  apostle  better  than  I  did  before,  that  I  can  hardly 
venture  to  say  that  I  understand  the  writer  himself.  He  adds  explana- 
tion to  explanation,  till  his  meaning  is  buried  in  explanation,  if  he 
himself  will  not  be  buried  in  baptism.  In  what  part  of  the  passage  does 
the  writer  find  the  apostle  illustrating  the  character  and  the  obligation 
of  believers?  My  eyes  are  so  bad,  that  I  cannot  discover  it  any  where 
in  the  documents.  The  apostle  himself  states,  that  the  believer  cannot 
live  in  sin ;  from  something  that  is  implied  in  his  baptism.  Nor  is  the 
believer's  conformity  to  Christ  merely  a  conformity  to  his  death,  but  to 
his  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  as  they  are  exhibited  in  baptism. 
Believers  are  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism,  and  it  is  by  baptism  also 
they  die  with  him.  The  very  reference  that  is  here  made  to  death, 
depends  necessarily  on  burial.  Death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  are  all 
expressly  in  the  emblem.  And  what,  according  to  this  writer,  is  the 
conformity  to  Christ's  death  ?  Why,  Christ  died  for  sin,  and  believers 
die  to  sin.  What  sort  of  conformity  is  this  ?  There  is  no  likeness  at  all 
in  this  conformity;  it  is  only  a  mere  play  upon  words.  But  what  is 
this  dying  to  sin?  Why,  it  is  "being  under  obligations  to  be  dead." 
Under  obligations  to  be  dead !  What  sort  of  security  is  this  that  they 
will  not  continue  in  sin  ?  Do  obligations  to  duty  afford  a  security  of 
performance?  Writers  who  take  on  them  to  direct  the  public,  are 
surely  under  obligation  to  reason  connectedly.  But  what  sort  of  an 
explanation  of  death  is  an  obligation  to  be  dead?  To  die,  and  to  be 
under  obligation  to  be  dead,  are  surely  very  different  things.  Surely  it 
must  be  a  desperate  cause  that  puts  wise  men  under  the  necessity  of 
employing  such  interpretations  of  the  word  of  God.  The  sense  in  which 
they  were  dead  to  sin,  must  insure  their  not  living  in  it,  otherwise  there 
is  no  meaning  in  the  apostle's  reasoning. 

Having  expounded  the  death  to  sin  as  being  under  obligation  to  be 
dead,  he  expounds  both  as  being  holy ;  and  holy  he  further  expounds  as 
being  by  their  profession,  obliged  to  be  holy.  Is  an  obligation  to  be 
holy  the  same  as  holy  ?  The  one  does  not  even  presuppose  the  other. 
But  death  to  sin,  and  holiness,  are  two  distinct  ideas,  though  they  always 
co-exist.  Every  thing  is  wrong  in  this  most  unhappy  commentary.  To 
what  shifts  are  men  driven,  who  will  force  the  word  of  God,  to  silence 
its  testimony  in  condemnation  of  their  errors ! 

Speaking  of  the  death  to  sin,  he  says,  "  This  is  what  was  signified  by 
baptism."  How  does  baptism  signify  death,  but  as  it  is  an  emblem  of  it? 
And  how  is  the  emblem  of  death  in  baptism,  but  as  baptism  is  a  burial? 

"And  so,"  he  continues,  "  believers  were  baptized  into  Christ's  death: 
not  that  baptism  was  a  symbol  of  death,  or  the  state  of  the  dead ;  for 
water,  or  a  washing  in  water,  never  was  a  svmbol  of  this."   This  expla- 

49 


386  REPLY   TO    DR.    MILLER. 

nation  palpably  contradicts  the  text.  The  apostle  expressly  says  that 
believers  "  are  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism  into  death."  But  Dr.  M. 
gives  a  reason  why  baptism  cannot  be  a  symbol  of  burial.  Now  what 
is  this  reason  ?  Let  all  the  ends  of  the  earth  hear  it.  Because  water, 
or  washing  with^water,  was  never  a  symbol  of  burial !  May  not  a  man 
be  buried  in  water  as  well  as  washed  in  it  ?  How  many  millions  are 
actually  buried  in  the  seas?  There  are  two  distinct  emblems  in  baptism: 
one  of  purification  by  water,  another  of  death,  burial,  and  resurrection, 
by  immersion.  It  is  shameful  for  such  a  man  as  Dr.  "M.  to  allege  the 
impossibility  of  there  being  in  baptism  an  emblem  of  burial,  because 
washing  in  water  is  not  an  emblem  of  burial.  Why,  Dr.  M.,  will  you 
blind  your  own  eyes?  Why  will  you  teach  the  disciples  of  Christ  to 
disannul  the  commandments  of  God  by  your  forced  explanation  ? 

"  Now,"  says  he,  "  being  dead,  or  in  a  state  of  death  to  sin,  is  the 
same  thing  as  to  be  spiritually  purified,  or  made  holy."  Here  it  is 
obvious  that  the  writer  has  no  definite  views  of  this  passage.  The 
Christian's  death  to  sin  he  had  formerly  expounded  as  "  being  under 
obligations  to  be  dead :"  now  it  is  "  being  in  a  state  of  death."  Which 
of  these  is  the  writer's  real  sentiment?  But  to  be  dead  to  sin  is  not  the 
same  thing  as  holiness,  or  spiritual  purification :  it  respects  our  union 
with  Christ  in  his  death  for  our  sins,  and  has  no  reference  to  personal 
holiness.  But  whatever  this  death  is,  it  is  a  death  that  is  exhibited  in 
baptism,  of  which  immersion  in  water  is  the  emblem.  Believers  are 
here  said  not  only  to  be  dead,  but  to  die,  to  be  buried,  and  to  rise 
in  baptism.  No  sophistry  about  the  kind  of  death  meant,  can  disturb 
this. 

"  And  this  is  the  very  thing,"  says  the  writer,  "  that  baptism,  coming 
in  the  place  of  ablutions  under  the  former  economy,  is  exactly  adapted 
to  signify."  No  doubt  that  the  application  of  water  under  the  law  and 
under  the  Gospel  has  the  same  emblem  of  purification.  But  does  this 
imply  that  a  burial  in  water  might  not,  in  the  new  dispensation,  be  an 
emblem  of  Christ's  burial,  as  well  as  of  purification  ?  Shall  I  be  obliged 
to  teach  this  lesson  again  ?  But  the  fact  is  that  baptism,  as  far  as  it  is 
here  expounded,  refers  to  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  without  any 
mention  of  purification,  or  allusion  to  it.  In  other  places,  it  is  referred 
to  as  emblematic  of  purification,  without  any  reference  to  the  emblem 
of  death,  burial,  and  resurrection.  Baptism  is  here  spoken  of,  not  with 
respect  to  the  water,  but  with  respect  to  the  mode.  In  this  there  are 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection. 

"  The  sum  of  the  apostle's  illustration,"  says  the  author,  "  so  far  as 
the  point  before  us  is  concerned,  is  simply  this ; — that  in  baptism,  as  a 
rite  emblematical  of  moral  purification,  Christians  profess  to  be  baptized 
into  the  death  of  Christ,  as  well  as  into  (or  into  the  hope  of)  his  resurrec- 
tion ;  that  they  are  dead  and  buried  in  respect  to  sin,  that  is,  in  a  moral 
and  spiritual  sense." 

As  a  rite  of  moral  purification  !  How  can  such  an  idea  be  contained 
in  the  sense  of  a  passage  in  which  purification  is  not  even  mentioned? 
Baptism  is,  indeed,  a  rite  emblematical  of  moral  purification,  but  it  is 
not  as  emblematical  of  this  that  it  is  here  considered :  it  is  here  an 


REPLY   TO    DR.    MILLER.  387 

emblem  of  burial.  When  baptism  is  considered  with  respect  to  purifi- 
cation, it  is  referred  to  as  a  washing — not  a  death,  or  burial.  Even  as 
respects  the  change  in  the  mind  of  a  believer,  the  emblem  of  dying  with 
respect  to  sin,  and  that  of  purifying,  are  quite  different.  Death  con- 
siders sin  as  destroyed ;  purification  considers  it  as  washed  away.  In 
this  passage,  we  have  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  and  they  are  all 
in  emblem  in  baptism.  We  are  buried  with  Christ  by  means  of  baptism. 
This  burial,  surely,  is  a  burial  in  emblem.  The  writer  never  attempts 
to  expound  the  phrase  "  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death."  Can 
we  be  buried  by  baptism  and  in  baptism,  if  in  baptism  there  is  no 
burial  ? 

But  our  exposition  of  this  passage,  it  seems,  has  another  fault.  "  The 
burial  of  Christ  was  by  no  means  such  as  the  friends  of  this  exposition 
commonly  suppose."  Commonly  suppose !  What  is  this  to  the  pur- 
pose ?  Does  he  deny  that  Christ  was  buried  ?  Does  he  think  that  an 
emblem  of  burial  must  perfectly  correspond  to  Christ's  burial?  He 
might  as  well  require  us  to  eat  literal  flesh  and  blood  in  the  Lord's 
supper,  in  order  to  have  a  better  emblem.  This  is  as  foolish  as  it  is 
perverse.  A  dramatic  representation,  and  an  emblem,  are  things  of  a 
very  different  nature.  Christ  was  buried  ;  and  the  believer  is,  by  bap- 
tism, buried  with  him.  There  is  no  need  that  there  should  be  a  closer 
resemblance  between  the  mode  of  the  rite,  and  the  entombing  of  Christ, 
than  that  each  should  be  called  a  burial.  Dr.  M.  has  not  profited  by 
the  lesson  I  gave  Mr.  Ewing  on  this  subject.  Why,  then,  has  he  not 
answered  me?  Was  not  Jonah  in  the  whale's  belly  an  emblem  of 
Christ  in  the  heart  of  the  earth  ?  And  is  not  a  believer's  baptism  as 
like  Christ's  burial,  as  was  Jonah's  in  the  belly  of  the  fish  ? 

"  The  Gazette  de  France,"  says  one  of  our  newspapers,  "  contains 
the  details  of  a  frightful  accident  to  fifty  workmen  employed  on  the  for- 
tifications of  Mount  Valerien,  who  had  been  buried  by  the  falling  in  of 
a  large  bank  of  earth."  Here,  says  the  critic,  there  can  be  no  likeness  to 
interment.  The  bank  fell  in  of  itself,  and  the  persons  on  whom  it  fell 
are  covered  as  they  stand  at  work.  Buried  here  does  not  signify  interred, 
but  merely  killed.  All  that  the  Gazette  means  to  say,  is,  that  the  falling 
bank  killed  the  workmen. 

With  respect  to  Col.  ii.  12,  the  author  says,  that  in  baptism  the 
"  putting  away  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh"  is  "  emblematically  represented  : 
as  a  man  dead  and  buried  is  cut  off  from  all  temporal  connexions  and 
indulgences."  But  how  can  baptism,  as  a  washing,  be  considered  as  a 
death  and  burial?  Besides,  it  is  in  baptism  that  this  burial  takes  place. 
Buried  in  baptism.     There  must,  then,  be  an  emblem  of  burial. 

Section  XIV. — Dr.  M.  crosses  the  Red  Sea  a  second  time ;  but  as 
I  do  not  find  that  he  has  made  any  additional  discoveries,  it  is  scarcely 
necessary  to  give  him  a  second  dip.  He  finds  no  immersion.  Well,  I 
have  found  what  I  have  justified  as  being  called  an  immersion,  by  the 
common  usage  of  language.  In  order  to  get  an  immersion  in  the  pas- 
sage referred  to,  I  am  not  obliged  to  make  the  smallest  addition  to  the 
text.     Dr.  M.,  however,  is  very  willing  to  allow  that  there  may  have 


388  REPLY   TO    DR.    MILLER. 

been  spray  from  the  sea,  and  a  few  straggling  drops  from  the  cloud, 
though  the  text  says  nothing  of  either.  Is  it  not  strange  partiality  that 
will  not  accept  an  explanation  according  to  the  meaning  of  the  word, 
justified  by  similar  usage,  and  will  avail  itself  of  things  that  exist  only 
in  imagination?  Why  does  not  Dr.  M.  tell  us  what  is  the  thing  that  is 
here  called  baptism  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea?  My  way  on  every 
subject  of  interpretation,  is  first  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the  word 
employed  to  designate  the  object,  then  to  see  how  this  meaning  can 
apply. 

Section  XV. — Dr.  M.  dismisses  the  argument  from  1  Pet.  iii.  20, 21, 
on  the  ground  that  there  was  no  immersion  of  Noah  and  his  family. 
With  as  great  propriety  the  learned  gentleman  may  deny  that  a  man  in 
a  tomb  is  buried,  because  he  is  covered  with  a  coffin.  What !  Noah 
not  immersed,  when  buried  in  the  waters  of  the  flood?  Are  there  no 
bounds  to  perverseness  ?  Will  men  say  every  thing  rather  than  admit 
the  mode  of  an  ordinance  of  Christ,  which  is  contrary  to  the  command- 
ments of  men  ?  "  Further,"  says  the  author,  "  that  immersion  is  not 
necessary  in  baptism ;  and  that  to  insist  upon  it,  as  indispensable,  is 
superstition,  appears  from  the  indisputable  fact,  that  both  the  significance 
and  the  effect  of  baptism  are  to  be  considered  as  depending,  not  on  the 
physical  influence  of  water,  or  upon  the  quantity  of  it  employed,  but  on  its 
symbolical  meaning,  and  on  the  blessing  of  God  upon  its  application  as  a 
symbol."  Here,  as  almost  every  where  else,  I  find  this  writer  remark- 
ably deficient  as  a  reasoner.  There  are,  in  this  extract,  almost  as  many 
faults  as  there  are  lines.  1.  He  grounds  the  non-essentiality  of  immer- 
sion, on  the  fact  that  "  the  significance  of  baptism  depends  not  on  the 
physical  influence  of  water."  This  implies  that  God  could  not  make 
immersion,  or  any  other  mode,  necessary  to  an  ordinance,  without 
making  the  significance  of  the  ordinance  depend  on  the  physical  influ- 
ence of  the  water.  This  is  absurd.  The  mode  of  the  application  of 
water  has  nothing  to  do  with  its  physical  influence.  2.  This  supposes 
that  we  contend  for  mode,  as  it  respects  quantity  of  water.  We  hold 
that  there  is  nothing  in  quantity,  if  it  is  sufficient  to  immerse.  What 
will  bury  the  believer  is  as  good  as  the  Southern  Ocean.  The  dispute 
is  not  about  the  greater  virtue  of  a  large  quantity  of  water,  but  about 
the  mode  as  a  command  of  God,  and  an  emblem  of  burial  with  Christ. 
3.  This  directly  asserts  that  the  significance  of  baptism  depends  not  on 
the  physical  influence  of  water ;  but  a  part  of  its  significance  does  depend 
on  the  physical  influence  of  water.  Water  is  an  emblem  of  purification 
from  sin,  because  its  physical  influence  is  to  purify.  4.  The  author 
here  tells  us,  that  the  significance  of  baptism  depends  on  its  symbolical 
meaning !  What  is  the  amount  of  this  ?  It  is,  that  its  significance 
depends  on  its  significance.  Is  not  its  significance  its  symbolical  mean- 
ing ?  Is  not  its  symbolical  meaning  its  significance  ?  5.  This  supposes 
that  immersion  cannot  have  a  symbolical  meaning.  We  practise  im- 
mersion because  it  is  commanded ;  but  we  hold  it  to  be  commanded 
because  of  its  symbolical  meaning.  This  makes  it  still  more  essential. 
6   This  supposes  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  obey  God  in  the  manner  of 


REPLY    TO    DR.    MILLER.  389 

doing  anything,  except  that  manner  is  symbolical.  This  is  teaching 
rebellion  against  God.  7.  This  designates  strict  obedience  to  the  forms 
that  God  prescribes  as  being  superstitious,  unless  these  forms  are  sym- 
bolical. This  is  an  odd  kind  of  superstition.  8.  This  mistakes  the 
nature  of  superstition.  A  mistake  in  interpreting  a  law  of  God,  with 
practice  accordingly,  is  not  superstition,  though  it  is  error.  9.  What 
does  the  author  mean  by  the  effect  of  baptism  ?  I  wish  to  know  what 
amount  of  Puseyism  the  writer  holds.  Is  there  anything  to  be  expected 
from  the  performance  of  any  rite,  but  the  blessing  of  obedience  and  the 
edification  conveyed  by  the  Spirit  through  it?  10.  Have  we  any  right 
to  expect  the  blessing  of  obedience,  when  Ave  do  not  obey  ?  Have  we 
any  right  to  expect  the  blessing  of  edification  through  the  Spirit,  when 
we  reject  the  symbol  appointed  to  convey  it?  If  Christ  has  appointed 
immersion,  can  we  look  for  his  blessing  on  a  different  observance  ?  If 
immersion  is  a  symbol,  can  we  expect  a  blessing  on  a  rite  which  rejects 
the  symbol  ?  Water,  no  doubt,  is  a  symbol,  but  it  is  only  a  part  of  the 
symbol  of  this  ordinance.  God,  no  doubt,  will  pardon  the  ignorance  of 
his  people ;  but  I  have  never  seen  the  Scripture  which  warrants  us  to 
expect  the  blessing  of  obedience  to  the  commandments  of  God,  on  the 
observance  of  the  ordinances  of  man.  When  the  Lord's  supper  was 
abused,  Paul  would  not  give  it  the  name  of  the  ordinance.  To  alter  or 
modify  the  ordinances  of  Christ,  is  anti-christian  arrogance;  though 
great  divines  may  think  it  not  only  harmless,  but  a  praiseworthy  thing. 

Section  XVI. — Dr.  M  tells  us  that  Protestants  consider  the  stress 
that  Roman  Catholics  lay  on  rites,  "  as  superstitious  and  dangerous." 
There  is  great  confusion  of  thought  in  this  observation.  To  lay  stress, 
as  to  salvation,  even  on  the  ordinances  of  God,  is  to  turn  away  from 
the  Gospel;  but  to  observe  them  most  strictly  is  the  duty  of  every 
Christian.  To  observe  rites  not  of  Divine  appointment,  is  an  abomina- 
tion to  God :  this  is  the  thing  in  which  consistent  Protestants  blame 
Roman  Catholics,  as  superstitious.  They  are  never  charged  as  super- 
stitious for  the  most  exact  observance  of  any  of  the  laws  of  God.  To 
make  the  observation  applicable,  the  parallel  must  run  thus :  As  we 
call  Roman  Catholics  superstitious,  because  they  rigidly  practise  all  the 
rites  of  the  church,  and  lay  on  them  the  stress  of  salvation,  so  if  any  one 
will  scrupulously  practise  every  ordinance  of  God,  he  is  superstitious, 
and  lays  on  them  the  stress  of  his  salvation.  Is  this  a  just  parallel  ? 
If  Roman  Catholics  are  superstitious  because  they  observe  as  doctrines 
the  commandments  of  men,  are  we  superstitious  because  we  most  scru- 
pulously observe  the  ordinances  of  God?  Must  we  show  our  liberty  by 
plunging  into  licentiousness?  Must  we  sin,  thatjwe  may  prove  that 
grace  abounds?  This  is  the  spirit  of  the  reasoning  of  this  author. 
Shall  we  take  the  liberty  of  disobeying  what  God  commands,  in  order 
to  show  that  we  are  not  saved  by  our  obedience  to  his  commands  ? 
There  are  very  many  of  the  observations  of  this  writer  which  have  this 
dangerous  tendency.  "We  believe,"  says  he,  "that  no  external  ordi- 
nance has  any  power  in  itself,"  &c.  I  believe  the  same  thing.  What 
then?    Shall  we  teach  Christians  to  neglect  the  external  rites  appointed 


390  REPLY    TO    DR.    MILLER. 

by  God,  or  to  alter  or  modify  them  at  pleasure,  in  order  to  show  that 
we  believe  that  there  is  no  power  in  the  ordinances  themselves?  If  this 
is  not  antinomianism,  I  have  never  met  a  specimen  of  it.  If  immersion 
is  of  Divine  appointment,  to  argue  that  it  is  not  necessary,  because  to 
make  it  necessary  is  to  lay  stress  on  ordinances,  is  directly  to  turn  the 
grace  of  God  into  licentiousness.  If  it  is  not  of  Divine  appointment, 
then  it  is  absurd  to  oppose  it  on  the  ground  that  no  external  ordinance 
has  any  power  in  itself.  Nothing  can  relieve  Dr.  M.  He  tell  us  again, 
"  There  is  no  disposition  in  depraved  human  nature  more  deeply  in- 
wrought, or  more  necessarily  operative,  than  the  disposition  to  rely  upon 
something  done  by  us  for  securing  the  Divine  favour."  I  most  cordially 
agree  with  this  statement ;  nothing  can  be  more  true.  But,  as  it 
stands  here,  it  is  most  dangerously  erroneous.  It  stands  as  a  warrant  to 
neglect  what  God  has  appointed,  in  order  to  avoid  a  legal  spirit.  Must 
I  plunge  into  antinomianism  with  Dr.  M.  to  show  that  I  do  not  look  for 
salvation  by  my  exactness  in  following  the  ordinances  of  Christ?  What 
other  tendency  can  this  observation  have,  than  to  induce  the  disciples 
of  Christ  to  neglect  the  commandments  of  God,  that  they  may  show  that 
they  do  not  depend  on  works  of  law  for  their  salvation  ?  I  have  never 
read  any  work  of  a  more  dangerous  tendency  than  this,  from  a  professor 
of  the  true  Gospel  of  God. 

On  the  supposition  that  the  benefit  of  the  ordinance  depended  on  the 
physical  influence  of  water,  he  says,  that  it  would  "  be  wise  to  insist  on 
a  rigorous  adherence  to  that  form."  Pray,  Dr.  M.  is  it  not  enough  that 
God  has  commanded  that  mode  ?  And,  on  the  supposition  that  he  has 
not  commanded  that  mode,  it  is  not  insisted  on. 

But  Dr.  M.  does  not  here  draw  the  proper  inference.  He  argues,  that 
as  the  benefit  depends  not  on  the  mode,  the  mode  may  be  changed.  In 
like  manner,  if  the  benefit  depends  not  on  the  physical  nature  of  water, 
the  water  may  be  changed.  So  Sir  Walter  Scott's  Moslems  in  the 
desert  observed  their  ablutions  with  sand.  "In  an  instant  each  Moslem 
cast  himself  from  his  horse,  turned  towards  Mecca,  and  performed  with 
sand  an  emblem  of  their  ablutions,  which  were  elsewhere  required  to  be 
made  with  water."  Christians,  then,  in  changing  the  water  in  baptism 
for  sand,  in  a  case  of  necessity,  are  justified  by  the  followers  of  the  pro- 
phet of  Mecca ! 

"  The  benefit,"  he  says,  "  is  the  result  solely  of  a  Divine  blessing  on  a 
prescribed  and  striking  emblem."  Do  we  teach  otherwise?  Do  we 
teach  sacramental  efficacy  ?  Do  we  hold  that  the  benefit  of  immersion 
depends  on  the  mode  without  the  blessing  of  God  ?  This  is  idle  reason- 
ing. But  what  is  the  prescribed  emblem?  It  is  both  water  and  mode — 
purification  and  burial.  Shall  we  look  for  a  blessing  while  we  trample 
on  the  mode  through  the  observance  of  which  the  blessing  is  to  be 
given  ?  But  he  adds,  "  and  as  the  word  of  God  has  nowhere  informed 
us  of  the  precise  mode  in  which  the  emblem  should  be  applied."  Is 
not  this  to  assume  the  very  point  in  dispute?  If  this  is  taken  for 
granted,  there  is  no  controversy.  Does  any  man  insist  that  immersion 
is  essential,  while  he  grants  that  the  word  of  God  is  silent  as  to 
mode  ?    What  sort  of  reasoning  is  this  ?    But  let  it  be  observed  that 


REPLY   TO    DR.    MILLER.  391 

the  author  here  admits  that  the  mode  is  not  fixed  by  scripture,  while  he 
prefers  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  for  an  emblematical  purpose.  Has  he  a 
license  from  Rome  for  this  popish  manufacture  ? 

Section  XVII. — Dr.  M.  adverts  to  the  conduct  of  Peter,  on  the 
occasion  of  Christ's  washing  the  disciples'  feet.  A  finer  or  more  appro- 
priate condemnation  of  his  own  party  could  not  be  found.  Peter,  in- 
fluenced by  his  own  wisdom,  would  not  submit  to  this,  as  it  appeared  a 
degradation  to  his  Master.  "  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  What 
I  do  thou  knowest  not  now ;  but  thou  shalt  know  hereafter."  Is  not  this 
enough  for  thee,  Peter?  No,  replies  the  arrogant  fisherman,  "Thou 
shalt  never  wash  my  feet."  What  petulance  under  the  guise  of  hu- 
mility, though  mingled  with  sincerity!  Who  does  not  see  in  Peter  the 
opposers  of  Christian  immersion  ?  From  their  own  view  of  decency, 
propriety,  &c,  combined  with  a  number  of  forced  improbabilities  and 
difficulties,  that  are  mere  phantoms,  they  cry  out  against  immersion, 
though  Jesus  has  positively  enjoined  it.  Peter's  obstinacy  at  last  gave 
way ;  but  his  own  wisdom  is  still  his  guide,  instead  of  the  wisdom  of  his 
Master  ;  and  he  cries  out,  Not  my  feet  only,  but  my  hands  and  my  head. 
Will  nothing  restrain  the  arrogance  of  thy  wisdom,  Peter  ?  Will  you 
never  learn  that  true  wisdom  teaches  submission  in  all  things  to  the  wis- 
dom of  God  ?  When  Peter  saw  that  it  was  a  good  thing  to  be  washed 
by  Christ,  he  must  have  more  washing  than  Christ  commanded.  Just 
so  with  our  paedo-baptist  brethren.  Christ  commands  believers  to  be 
baptized ;  they  cry  out,  Not  ourselves  only,  but  our  little  ones.  In  like 
manner,  in  early  times,  naked  baptism,  trine  immersion,  &c.  &c. 

Section  XVIII. — "Another,  and  in  my  view,"  says  the  writer,  "  con- 
clusive reason  for  believing  that  our  Baptist  brethren  are  in  error,  in 
insisting  that  no  baptism,  unless  by  immersion,  is  valid,  is,  that  the  na- 
tive tendency  of  this  doctrine  is  to  superstition  and  abuse."  Here  again 
I  charge  the  writer  as  being  unphilosophical  in  his  principles,  and  illogi- 
cal in  his  reasoning.  He  assumes  the  point  in  debate,  by  taking  it  for 
granted  that  God  had  not  appointed  immersion :  for  if  God  has  appoint- 
ed it,  would  it  tend  to  superstition  to  insist  on  obedience?  Again,  if 
the  thing  is  believed  to  be  of  Divine  appointment,  even  although  this 
should  be  a  mistake,  it  has  no  tendency  to  superstition.  If  any  one 
believes  that  Christ  has  appointed  sprinkling,  I  know  he  is  in  error ;  but 
to  charge  him  with  superstition,  or  his  practice  as  having  a  native 
tendency  to  superstition,  would  be  an  abuse  of  words.  But  while  they 
who  practise  infant  sprinkling,  believing  it  to  be  an  ordinance  of  God, 
are  not  superstitious,  they  are  superstitious  who  practise  it  as  a  human 
tradition. 

How  can  the  native  tendency  of  the  doctrine,  that  nothing  but  im- 
mersion is  baptism,  be  to  superstition?  Would  the  native  tendency  of 
the  doctrine,  that  water  is  essential  to  baptism,  lead  to  superstition? 
And  how  can  one  of  those  tend  more  to  superstition  than  the  other,  if 
they  are  both  commanded  ?  If  God  has  not  commanded  immersion, 
then  it  is  foolish  to  talk  of  it  as  tending  to  superstition  :  it  is  itself  super- 


392  REPLY   TO    DR.    MILLER. 

stitious,  if  practised  on  that  ground.  Nothing  can  be  superstitious 
which  God  has  appointed.  When  God  appointed  circumcision,  would 
it  have  tended  to  superstition  to  insist  on  the  thing  commanded,  and  that 
paring  the  nails  was  not  valid  circumcision  ? 

What  does  Dr.  M.  mean  by  saying,  that  the  native  tendency  of  the 
doctrine  is  to  abuse  ?  Is  this  philosophy  ?  Is  it  Scripture  ?  Is  it  com- 
mon sense?  If  the  native  tendency  of  a  doctrine  is  bad,  bad  must  be 
the  doctrine  itself.  If  the  bad  consequence  is  not  in  the  doctrine,  but 
in  its  abuse,  the  consequence  is  not  native.  If  Christ  appointed  immer- 
sion, to  hold  that  it  is  essential  to  the  ordinance  cannot  have  a  bad  ten- 
dency. If  he  did  not  appoint  it,  the  bad  tendency  is  not  an  abuse.  It 
is  foolish  to  argue  against  the  abuse  of  a  thing  which  has  not  been 
divinely  appointed.  To  argue  against  the  abuse  of  any  observance, 
takes  it  for  granted  that  the  observance  is  duty  :  to  argue  against  it  as 
natively  tending  to  superstition,  takes  it  for  granted  that  it  is  not  divinely 
appointed.  Here,  then,  Dr.  M.,  in  the  very  same  sentence,  in  the  im- 
mediate junction  of  two  words,  considers  immersion  to  be  both  true  and 
false. 

If  Dr.  M.  has  met  with  any  who  believe  that  there  is  some  inherent 
efficacy  in  "  being  buried  under  water,"  and  that  those  that  have  sub- 
mitted to  it  "  are,  of  course,  real  Christians,"  I  give  them  up  to  his 
unmitigated  reprobation.  But  when  he  contends  that  this  is  the  natural 
tendency  of  the  Baptist  doctrine,  I  must  affirm  that  this  is  downright 
misrepresentation.  Our  doctrine  is  that  the  word  signifies  immersion, 
and  consequently  nothing  but  immersion  can  be  a  fulfilment  of  the 
command.  This  is  saying  no  more  than  that  nothing  but  immersion  is 
immersion.  Sprinkling  cannot  be  called  baptism  with  more  propriety 
than  sand  can  be  called  water.  This  I  do  not  leave  as  an  inference 
from  my  doctrines :  I  wish  to  proclaim  it  to  all  my  brethren.  Does  this 
import  that  I  lay  on  it  any  stress  for  salvation  ?  Does  it  import  that  I 
deny  the  Christianity  of  those  who  will  not  receive  it  ?  Does  it  say, 
that  I  cannot  consistently  unite  with  every  Christian  in  every  thing  in 
which  I  am  agreed  with  him?  It  imports  none  of  these  things.  I  can 
say  with  the  utmost  sincerity,  grace  be  with  all  who  love  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  in  sincerity.  The  Christian  who  denies  baptism  altogether  is 
not  excluded  from  my  recognition. 

Section  XIX. — "  Finally,"  says  Dr.  M.,  "  that  immersion  cannot  be 
considered,  to  say  the  least,  as  essential  to  a  valid  baptism,  is  plain  from 
the  history  of  this  ordinance" 

1.  Here  Dr.  M.  grounds  on  a  false  principle.  He  assumes  the  opinion 
of  antiquity  as  authority.  This  is  Popery,  or  Puseyism.  He  assumes, 
that  if  Christians  in  early  church  history  considered  affusion  as  a  valid 
substitute  for  immersion,  it  must  be  a  valid  substitute.  I  deny  the 
position  :  this  is  an  unprotestant  foundation. 

2.  Because  antiquity  sanctioned  affusion,  as  a  substitute  for  immer- 
sion in  some  circumstances,  even  were  its  opinion  authoritative,  does  it 
follow  that  it  is  a  lawful  substitute  in  all  circumstances?  Does  it  imply 
that  the  mode  is  optional  ? 


REPLY    TO    DR.    MILLER.  393 

3.  The  Fathers  were  led  to  this  by  an  opinion  that  baptism  was 
necessary  to  salvation. 

4.  They  did  rfbt  consider  affusion  to  be  baptism,  but  only  a  valid  sub- 
stitute for  baptism.  Dr.  M.  misrepresents  Eusebius,  when  he  says,  that 
he  "  states  that  Novatian  was  baptized  in  his  bed."  Eusebius  says 
nothing  like  this.  He  does  not  say  that  Novatian  was  baptized  on  his 
bed,  or  that  he  was  baptized  at  all ;  but  that,  falling  sick,  he  had 
water  poured  around  him  in  his  bed.  The  word  used  by  Eusebius  is 
perichutheis.  He  received  the  grace  usually  conferred  by  baptism,  though 
he  was  not  baptized,  but  only  perichysed.  There  is  an  ellipsis  both  of 
the  word  water  and  of  the  word  grace.  He  was  poured  around,  namely, 
with  water ;  he  received,  namely,  grace.  That  it  is  the  word  grace  that 
is  to  be  supplied  by  ellipsis  is  evident  from  several  parts  of  Cyprian's 
letter,  and  the  phraseology  usual  on  such  occasions.  This  affords  the 
most  irrefragable  proof  that  they  did  not  consider  affusion  as  baptism, 
but  that  affusion  in  a  case  of  necessity  will  serve  instead  of  baptism. 
The  superstition  both  of  Christians  and  Mahomedans  has,  in  cases  of 
necessity,  substituted  sand  for  water,  as  well  as  sprinkling  for  immersion. 
It  is  very  merciful  in  the  two  churches  to  make  so  needful  a  commutation. 

5.  Nor  is  Dr.  M.  correct  in  reporting  the  testimony  of  his  documents 
when  he  says,  "And  although  some  questioned,  whether  a  man  who  had 
been  brought  to  make  a  profession  of  religion  on  a  sick  bed,  and  when 
he  considered  himself  as  about  to  die,  ought  to  be  made  a  minister;  yet 
this  doubt  arose,  we  are  assured,  not  from  any  apprehension  that  the 
baptism  itself  was  incomplete,  but  on  the  principle  that  he  who  came  to 
the  faith  not  voluntarily,  but  from  necessity,  ought  not  to  be  made  a 
priest,  unless  his  subsequent  diligence  and  faith  should  be  distinguished 
and  highly  commendable."  Eusebius  says  nothing  at  all  about  the 
completeness  or  incompleteness  of  Novatian's  baptism.  He  does  not 
represent  him  as  baptized  at  all.  The  question  was,  whether  a  man 
having  water  poured  about  him  on  a  sick  bed  could  be  said  to  have 
received  the  grace,  and  more  especially  whether  he  could  be  fit  for  an 
office  in  the  church.  Though  he  was  perichysed,  he  was  neither  bap- 
tized nor  confirmed.  The  words  of  Eusebius  expressly  state,  that  it  was 
not  lawful  that  a  man  having  water  poured  around  him  in  his  bed 
should  have  any  ecclesiastical  office  conferred  on  him.  If  he  might 
by  such  a  substitution  be  allowed  to  go  to  heaven,  this  might  not  be 
sufficient  to  make  him  a  good  Puseyite  clergyman.  And,  to  make 
the  matter  still  worse,  he  had  not,  after  this  substitution  for  baptism, 
received  the  confirmation  of  the  bishop,  without  which  a  man  could 
not  receive  the  Spirit,  even  though  he  had  been  born  of  water.  How 
can  Dr.  M.  say  that  the  affusion,  instead  of  baptism,  was  no  part  of  the 
complaint  against  Novatian,  when  the  very  words  quoted  by  himself 
imply  this  most  decidedly  ?  Cyprian's  answer  shows  that  the  question 
was,  "  whether  they  are  to  be  accounted  lawful  Christians  because  they 
have  not  been  washed  all  over  with  the  water  of  salvation,  but  have  only 
some  of  it  poured  on  them  ?"  After  quoting  this,  how  could  Dr.  M.  say 
that  the  complaint  did  not  respect  the  want  of  immersion,  and  the  sub- 
stitution of  affusion  ? 

50 


394  REPLY   TO    DR.    MILLER. 

Dr.  M.  tells  us  that  Origen  was  contemporary  with  Cyprian,  and  that 
he,  in  commenting  on  1  Kings  xviii.  33,  tells  us  that  "  Elijah  baptized 
the  wood  on  the  altar."  This  proceeds  on  a  principle  I  have  often 
explained  and  illustrated.  Every  child  knows  that  our  word  immerse 
may  be  used  in  the  same  way. 

Dr.  Miller's  work  can  have  no  pretensions,  as  a  work  of  controversy, 
founded  on  criticism.  He  merely  asserts  the  meaning  of  the  word  by 
solemn  declaration,  or  rests  it  on  the  testimony  of  others  without  pro- 
ducing their  proofs.  If  I  have  paid  him  the  compliment  to  notice  him 
as  a  controversial  writer  on  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  question,  he  is 
indebted  to  his  fame  on  other  subjects.  In  his  reasoning  he  either 
assumes  false  first  principles,  or  from  sound  principles  deduces  false 
conclusions. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

EXAMINATION  OF  THE  VIEWS  OF  MR.  HALL  OF  AMERICA,  ON  THE  MEANING 
OF  THE  WORD  BAPTISM. 

Section  I. — While  Mr.  Hall  thinks  that  pouring  and  sprinkling  are 
"  the  only  modes  for  which  we  have  any  clear  scriptural  example,  or  even 
clear  scriptural  authority,"  he  also  thinks,  that  the  mode  of  the  applica- 
tion is  a  "  matter  of  entire  indifference,"  and  that  "  immersion  is  a 
valid  baptism."  Here  Mr.  H.  and  I  differ  fundamentally,  with  respect 
to  the  obligation  of  scriptural  example  and  authority.  If  there  is  clear 
scriptural  example,  and  clear  scriptural  authority,  for  pouring  and 
sprinkling,  and  neither  scriptural  authority,  nor  example,  for  immersion, 
I  cannot  admit  that  immersion  is  baptism.  Can  anything  be  valid, 
which  is  not  scriptural?  Can  a  thing  be  scriptural,  which  has  no 
scriptural  authority  ?  This  is  a  valid  invalid.  If  the  word  in  question 
is  so  extensive  in  its  meaning  as  to  include  immersion,  then  how  can  it 
be  said,  that  there  is  no  scriptural  authority  for  the  mode?  On  that 
ground  it  has  the  clearest  proof,  though  not  to  the  exclusion  of  other 
modes.  It  is  evident  that  the  author  has  no  clear  conception  of  his  own 
meaning  of  the  word  that  designates  this  ordinance.  He  cares  not 
what  the  meaning  is,  provided  it  has  sufficient  extension  for  pouring 
and  sprinkling. 

The  command  to  baptize,  he  thinks  refers  to  the  thing  done,  rather 
than  to  the  mode  of  doing  it.  But  what  is  the  thing  done  ?  As  far 
as  respects  the  word,  mode  is  the  very  thing  in  command ;  the  water 
itself  is  usually  supplied  by  ellipsis.  When  Mr.  H.  asserts  of  himself 
and  others,  that  "  they  would  as  soon  throw  their  bodies  into  the  fire, 
as  refuse  to  be  immersed,  were  they  convinced  that  immersion  is  essen- 
tial to  baptism,"  I  give  him  full  credit,  and  rejoice  in  the  belief  of  his 
integrity.  At  the  same  time,  I  must  say,  that  as  long  as  he  grounds  on 
the  rules  of  interpretation  adopted  by  him,  overlooking  the  fundamental 
laws  of  language,  I  can  see  no  reason  for  his  changing  his  convictions 
on  any  subject. 

Section  II. — He  commences  with  some  observations  on  the  laws 
of  interpretation.  This  is  as  it  should  be.  On  the  soundness  of  the 
philosophy  of  this  procedure,  the  whole  question  must  for  ever  depend. 
It  is  hardly  ever  named  by  the  generality  of  our  opponents.    I  am,  then, 

395 


396  REPLY   TO    MR.    HALL. 

much  pleased  to  find  this  writer  commencing  so  auspiciously.  Even 
though  here  in  error,  he  may,  by  the  habit  of  pursuing  first  principles, 
find  the  truth  at  last.  With  a  view,  by  one  stroke,  to  set  aside  all  the 
authorities  on  our  side,  for  the  meaning  of  the  disputed  word,  he  alleges 
the  use  of  the  word  provisions.  All  the  dictionaries,  he  says,  give 
victuals  as  the  meaning.  Yet  in  a  law  of  Edward  III.,  forbidding 
all  ecclesiastical  persons  to  purchase  provisions  at  Rome,  it  means 
nomination  to  benefices  by  the  pope.  But  how  does  this  example  stand 
in  my  way  1  Is  it  by  the  authority  of  dictionaries  that  I  determine  the 
meaning  of  any  word  ?  The  language,  and  not  lexicons,  is  my  authority ; 
and  the  language  in  the  alleged  example,  gives  the  word  provisions 
a  secondary  meaning,  which  is  of  equal  authority  with  the  primary. 
Nothing  can  be  in  more  perfect  accordance  with  my  doctrine.  It  is 
just  an  example  that  I  would  select  to  illustrate  my  views  of  the  laws 
of  language.  The  English  language  gives  nomination  to  ecclesiastical 
benefices  by  the  pope,  as  one  of  the  meanings  of  the  word  provisions ; 
and  when  used  in  reference  to  ecclesiastical  things,  it  is  self-evidently 
clear  that  this,  and  not  victuals,  is  its  meaning.  How  does  this  apply  to 
my  doctrine  with  respect  to  the  word  in  question  ?  In  what  department, 
in  what  author,  Jew  or  Gentile,  is  it  used  in  any  sense  but  that  of 
immersion?  Here  Josephus  and  the  Septuagint  agree  with  the  heathen 
poets;  the  latest  writers  agree  with  the  earliest.  If  one  decided  example, 
in  any  author,  of  any  age  or  country,  gives  a  secondary  meaning,  I  will 
admit  such  meaning  to  a  fair  competition.  Mr.  H.  thinks  he  has  here 
the  strength  of  demonstration,  yet  he  proves  nothing  that  I  will  not 
assert.     It  is  my  own  doctrine. 

Mr.  H.,  with  my  other  opponents,  represents  me  as  resting  the  proof 
on  the  classics  alone.  This,  as  I  have  again  and  again  showed,  is  a  gross 
misrepresentation.  I  begin  with  the  classics,  I  end  only  with  the  hour 
of  the  institution  of  the  ordinance.  If  Josephus  and  the  Septuagint 
established  a  secondary  meaning,  corresponding  to  the  meaning  of  the 
word  provisions  in  the  canon  law,  I  would  admit  it  with  the  greatest 
promptness;  but  if  ancient  authors  establish  but  one  meaning  of  a 
word,  a  secondary  should  not  be  supposed  in  later  writers,  except  in 
proof  of  its  existence.  A  good  deal  of  unsound  observation  has  been 
employed  by  the  learned,  on  the  subject  of  the  distinction  between 
classic  and  Hellenistic  Greek,  and  torrents  of  nonsense  and  of  ignorance 
have  been  poured  forth  by  those  who  adopt  their  conclusions.  I  may 
yet  have  an  opportunity  of  stating  my  views  on  the  subject.  But  here, 
the  question  has  no  concern.  The  fact  to  be  ascertained  is  the  change 
— not  the  cause  of  the  change.  If  a  change  is  proved,  I  will  admit  it, 
whatever  may  be  supposed  the  cause. 

He  alludes  triumphantly  to  the  case  mentioned  Ecclesiasticus  xxxiv.  30. 
The  baptizing  here,  he  thinks,  was  done  by  sprinkling.  Demonstrably 
it  was  not ;  it  was  a  bath.  As  the  words  baptize  and  louo  here  refer 
to  the  same  thing,  Mr.  H.  thinks  that  this  is  evidence  that  they  are 
synonymous.  I  have  often  been  obliged,  gratuitously,  to  teach  my 
opponents  that  words  may  refer  to  the  same  thing  without  being 
synonymous.    I  bestow  on  him  this  canon.   If  he  looks  through  what  I 


REPLY   TO    MR.    HALL.  397 

have  written  on  the  subject,  he  will  see  it  proved.  When  words  refer  to 
the  same  thing,  they  must  be  consistent  in  what  they  express;  but 
one  may  express  more  or  less  than  the  other.  As  Mr.  H.  appears 
to  have  a  turn  for  the  philosophy  of  first  principles,  I  hope  this  will  not 
be  lost  on  him. 

I  had  said  that,  "  When  I  have  proved  the  meaning  of  a  word  by  the 
authority  of  the  whole  consent  of  Greek  literature,  1  will  not  surrender 
it  to  the  supposition  of  the  strict  adherence  of  the  Jewish  nation,  in  the 
time  of  writing  the  Apocrypha,  to  the  Mosaic  ritual."  I  have  no  need 
of  availing  myself  of  the  aid  of  this  observation  ;  but  I  still  rigorously 
adhere  to  it  as  a  sound  principle.  A  change  in  a  rite  is  frequent ;  and 
a  change  is  rather  to  be  admitted  than  to  disregard  the  authority  of 
language. 

"  The  question,  then,"  says  Mr.  H., "  comes  to  this  dilemma;  either  the 
Jews  had  abandoned  the  mode  of  purifying  from  a  dead  body,  as  speci- 
fically and  minutely  pointed  out  by  God ;  or,  here  was  a  baptism  by 
sprinkling."  The  question  has  not  come  to  this ;  for  I  can  do  without 
this  supposition  altogether.  In  fact,  I  have  no  need  of  it :  I  give  it 
merely  as  an  ultimate  possible  resource,  or  a  proof  beyond  what  is 
necessary.  And  if  it  did  come  to  this,  where  is  the  improbability,  espe- 
cially where  is  the  impossibility  of  such  a  change  ?  The  Jews  made 
greater  changes  in  their  religion  than  this.  Surely  our  opponents  should 
not  think  this  an  unjustifiable  change. 

He  speaks  of  me,  as  "  driven  to  assume,  and  that  without  the  least 
shadow  or  pretence  of  authority,  that  when  God  had  commanded  a 
purification  by  sprinkling,  the  Jewish  nation  had  turned  about  and  made 
an  immersion  of  it."  Why  does  he  say,  I  am  driven  ?  Does  he  not 
perceive,  that  I  have  pointed  to  this  as  a  possible  resource  ?  Have  I  not 
proved  the  thing  without  this  ?  Why  does  he  say,  that  I  assume  ?  Does 
he  not  perceive  that  I  do  not  assume  it  as  a  fact  1  I  assume  it  merely  as 
a  possibility ;  and  whde  I  assume  it  as  a  possibility,  I  do  not  believe  it 
to  have  been  a  fact.  The  writer's  observations  show  that  he  is  not 
acquainted  with  the  philosophy  of  the  burden  of  proof.  He  supposes 
that  it  lies  on  me  to  prove  that  there  was  actually  such  a  change  as  I 
suppose  possible,  before  I  can  avail  myself  of  the  argument.  But  I  am 
here  only  answering  an  objection — not  establishing  an  affirmative ;  and 
a  bare  possibility  is  perfectly  sufficient.  Let  Mr.  H.  acquaint  himself 
with  the  philosophy  of  evidence,  before  he  ventures  to  criticise  my 
reasoning.  He  is  strong  only  from  his  ignorance  of  the  grounds  of 
proof.  He  supposes  that  I  must  have  felt  great  difficulty  in  Mark  vii.  4. 
I  can  assure  him,  that  I  never  felt  a  moment's  embarrassment :  it  is  as 
plain  to  me  as  any  point  in  history.  If  I  believe  the  evangelist,  I  can 
have  no  doubt  of  the  fact  reported.  Either  the  persons  referred  to,  were 
immersed  on  the  occasions  mentioned,  or  the  inspired  writer  testifies  a 
falsehood.  Between  these  alternatives  my  faith  cannot  hesitate.  But 
my  opponent  not  only  frequently  tramples  on  self-evident  first  principles ; 
he  here  adopts  an  unsound  and  arbitrary  first  principle,  as  the  founda- 
tion of  his  argument.  He  assumes  that  every  Scriptttre  historical  fact 
must  he  authenticated  by  uninspired  history.     This  is  not  a  sound  first 


398  REPLY   TO    MR.    HALL. 

principle :  it  is  not  essential  even  to  an  uninspired  historian.  But  the 
Scriptures  disdain  it.  But  even  were  the  canon  admitted  in  this 
instance,  what  would  it  prove?  It  might  serve  the  infidel,  but  could 
not  affect  the  question  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word.  Grant  to  the 
infidel,  that  no  historical  fact  in  Scripture  can  be  admitted  as  truth 
unless  it  is  authenticated  by  the  history  of  the  time, — he  will  triumph  in 
his  unbelief.  In  vain  will  you  allege  that  the  word  may  not  here  signify 
immersion ;  he  defies  you  to  bring  an  instance,  in  which  it  has  another 
meaning.  If  they  were  not  immersed,  he  will  say,  the  evangelist  asserts 
a  falsehood.  What  is  meant  by  the  word,  must  be  proved  by  the  usage 
of  the  language.  If  the  word  signify  to  immerse,  then  there  is  the  best 
of  all  historical  proof:  there  is  inspired  proof  that  the  persons  referred 
to,  immersed  themselves  before  meat,  after  market. 

But  here,  Mr.  H.  is  confident  that  he  takes  away  my  foundation. 
"  The  meaning  of  the  word,"  says  he,  "  is  the  very  thing  in  question 
here.  We  cannot  allow  him  to  prove  a  matter  in  question,  by  first 
assuming  it  as  true."  To  this  point,  I  invite  the  rigorous  exercise  of 
discrimination  in  all  my  readers.  Assume  the  point  in  question !  I  would 
almost  as  soon  be  convicted  of  high  treason.  Sound  and  fair  reasoning  is 
with  me  the  point  of  honour  as  a  controversialist.  Let  truth  itself  fall, 
rather  than  uphold  it  by  falsehood.  But  I  do  not  assume  the  meaning  of 
the  word  here ;  I  rest  it  on  the  proof  previously  alleged.  Have  I  not 
found  the  meaning  of  the  word,  by  the  testimony  of  the  whole  range  of 
Greek  literature  ?  When,  from  this  authority,  I  have  found  that  it  signifies 
immerse  and  nothing  else,  have  I  not  an  unquestionable  right  to  allege 
this  proved  meaning  in  any  place  where  the  connexion  itself  does  not 
decide?  Had  I  alleged  that  the  word  in  Mark  vii.  4,  must  signify 
immersion,  without  having  submitted  any  previous  proof,  then  I  might 
be  charged  with  assuming  the  point  in  question.  But  when  in  a 
disputed  passage,  I  allege  that  the  word  must  have  the  meaning  which 
in  other  passages  it  is  proved  to  have,  I  rest  on  a  self-evident  first 
principle ;  I  assume  merely,  that  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  lan- 
guage must  be  the  meaning  of  the  word  here.  Is  there  any  one  pos- 
sessed of  a  sound  mind,  who  will  dispute  this?  This  assumption,  I  grant 
equally  to  my  opponents.  Had  they  a  meaning  in  proof,  as  the  only 
meaning  of  the  word,  I  would  grant  that  they  might  apply  this  meaning 
to  every  passage  that  did  not  decide  its  own  meaning.  Is  it  not  on  the 
ground  that  I  have  proved  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and  not  by  assump- 
tion, that  I  assert  that  it  must  be  immersion  in  this  place?  Suppose 
for  instance,  that  we  interpret  the  expression,  "  Her  Majesty  took  an 
airing  yesterday  in  her  pony  phaeton :"  and  that  we  dispute  about  the 
meaning  of  the  word  pony.  "  Pony,"  says  one,  "  is  a  small  horse ;" 
"  Pony,"  says  another,  "  cannot  be  a  small  horse,  for  I  saw  her  Majesty 
yesterday,  driving  with  very  large  horses.  Pony,  then,  must  signify  a 
Jarge  horse."  "  I  care  not  what  you  saw,"  says  the  first,  "  pony  is  a 
small  horse,  for  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  language  is  nothing  else. 
Either  then,  the  account  is  false,  or  her  Majesty  did  yesterday  take  an 
airing  with  small  horses  in  her  carriage."  "  Assumption,  assumption !' 
cries  Mr.  H. :  "  the  fact  must  not  be  determined  by  the  word,  but  by  other 


REPLY   TO    MR.    HALL.  399 

proof."  Would  not  this  be  ridiculous?  It  is  the  very  soul  of  Mr.  H.'s 
objection  to  my  doctrine  on  this  point.  In  any  particular  passage 
where  my  opponent  may  choose  to  dispute  the  meaning  of  the  word,  I 
rest  on  the  meaning  of  it  as  already  in  proof.  The  word  in  question, 
signifies  to  immerse,  as  certainly  as  pony  signifies  a  small  horse.  If  it  is 
not  in  proof  that  the  word  signifies  to  immerse,  then  I  allow  that  the 
meaning  cannot  be  assumed  here.  Surely,  this  is  very  far  from  as- 
suming its  meaning.  As  I  would  not  charge  Mr.  H.  with  a  want  of 
candour,  I  must  charge  on  him  a  want  of  perspicacity,  in  not  being  able 
to  discriminate  between  resting  on  previous  proof,  and  mere  assumption 
of  the  point  in  question.  This  is  the  only  point  in  which  Mr.  H.  is 
plausible ;  and  here  he  is  plausible  only  to  persons  who  have  as  little 
discrimination  as  himself. 

"  What,"  says  Mr.  H.,  "  is  the  historical  fact,  as  to  what  the  Jews  did 
before  eating, when  they  came  from  market?  Settle  this,  and  you  settle 
the  meaning  of  the  word  baptize  in  this  connexion."  This  is  not  the 
question  to  be  settled.  Uninspired  testimony  might  say  nothing  on  the 
subject.  The  question  is  not,  what  history  says  on  the  subject ;  but 
what  the  evangelist  says  ?  Can  this  be  known,  but  by  the  meaning  of 
the  word  he  employs  ?  I  do  not  say  that  it  must  be  the  meaning  that 
I  attach  to  it,  but  its  meaning  in  the  language,  whatever  that  may  be. 
You  must  know  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptize,  before  you  can  know 
what  the  Jews  did  on  the  occasion,  according  to  the  evangelist.  History 
might  be  silent,  history  might  be  lost,  history  might  speak  of  other  things 
done,  while  the  thing  asserted  by  the  evangelist  might  be  omitted. 
Nothing  but  a  contradiction  on  the  part  of  history,  could  place  history 
in  opposition  to  the  evangelist ;  and  even  in  that  case  the  evangelist  is 
better  proof  than  history.  Whatever  history  may  or  may  not  say,  it  is 
the  meaning  of  the  word  baptize,  in  the  Greek  language,  that  must 
inform  us  what  the  evangelist  means  on  this  occasion.  When  we  go  to 
history,  is  it  not  by  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  language,  that  we 
are  to  know  its  meaning,  in  any  particular  case  ? 

On  the  ground  that  the  fact  must  be  settled  by  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  he  asserts,  that  "  the  thing  in  dispute  should  be  proved  by  itself." 
This  is  an  amazing  want  of  discrimination.  What  is  the  thing  in 
dispute  in  this  place?  The  meaning  of  the  word  in  this  passage, — the 
meaning  of  the  assertion  with  respect  to  the  Jews.  Now,  is  the  assertion, 
that  the  thing  which  they  are  said  to  do  must  be  known  by  the  meaning 
of  the  word  used  by  the  evangelist,  the  same  thing  as  to  prove  the  thing 
in  dispute  by  itself?  It  is  not  from  this  passage  that  I  prove  the  meaning 
of  the  word  :  I  bring  the  proved  meaning,  to  show  what  must  be  its 
meaning  here.  I  do  not  argue  from  the  passage,  that  the  word  must 
signify  to  immerse :  I  argue  that  it  must  signify  here,  what  it  signifies 
elsewhere.  My  reasoning  on  the  point,  so  far  from  proving  the  thing  by 
itself,  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  supposition  that  the  word  signifies 
fumigation.  I  argue,  that  if  the  word  is  proved,  from  its  use  in  the 
language,  to  signify  fumigate,  and  nothing  but  fumigate ;  fumigate  it  must 
be  here,  and  nothing  but  fumigate.  In  determining  the  meaning  of  a 
word,  in  passages  in  which  connexion  does  not  decide,  we  must  be 


400  REPLY    TO    MR.    HALL. 

directed  by  the  use  of  the  language.  Can  anything  but  the  wildest 
fanaticism  deny,  that  the  meaning  of  every  assertion  is  the  meaning  of 
the  words  employed  to  express  it?  And  if  the  meaning  of  any  word  is 
not  determined  by  the  passage  in  which  it  is  used,  must  it  not  be  ascer- 
tained by  its  use  in  other  places?  Whether  other  history  confirms 
this,  or  contradicts  it,  is  to  me  a  matter  of  perfect  indifference.  If  an 
English  traveller  relates,  that  on  a  certain  occasion  a  particular  people 
immersed  themselves ;  and  another,  that  on  the  same  occasion  they  fumi- 
gated ;  instead  of  reconciling  them,  by  making  immersion  coincide  with 
fumigate,  or  fumigate  with  immersion,  I  will  say,  "  either  they  did  both, 
or  one  of  the  travellers  relates  a  falsehood."  I  will  not  allow  any  man 
to  defend  them  by  tampering  with  the  English  words. 

I  find  as  little  trouble  in  immersing  the  couches.  Whatever  might 
have  been  their  size,  they  might  easily  be  immersed  in  a  pond.  But 
even  on  the  supposition  that  they  were  too  large  to  be  immersed  entire, 
I  have  contrived  to  take  them  to  pieces,  and  immerse  them  in  parts. 
This  excites  Mr.  H.'s  great  admiration.  I  have  not  the  smallest  need 
for  the  supposition ;  nevertheless  I  will  retain  it  carefully,  as  a  safe  last 
resort.  "  Indeed,"  exclaims  Mr.  H.,  "  what  shall  we  not  allow  him  to 
suppose  might  have  been  the  case,  rather  than  grant  the  possibility  that 
the  Jews  might  have  used  the  word  baptize  in  a  different  sense  from 
that  of  the  old  heathen  Greeks  ?" 

I  will  make  this  supposition,  Mr.  H.,  without  waiting  for  your  allow- 
ance :  it  is  my  right  to  make  it.  Here,  again,  I  must  discipline  him 
on  first  principles.  In  answering  an  objection,  anything  possible  may  be 
supposed ;  in  proof,  nothing  can  be  admitted  without  evidence.  The 
greatest  part  of  my  trouble  is,  to  teach  my  opponents  the  laws  of  reason- 
ing. Not  one  of  them  knows  when  proof  lies  upon  him,  and  when  it 
lies  upon  me.  They  call  for  proof  from  me,  when  they  should  prove 
themselves.  When  I  answer  objections  by  possible  and  even  probable 
solutions,  they  call  on  me  for  absolute  proof.  No  man  is  entitled  to 
appear  in  the  field  of  controversy,  till  he  has  studied  the  laws  of  the 
combat.  It  is  ignorance  of  this,  with  the  adoption  of  false  first  prin- 
ciples, that  makes  some  ingenious  men  think  it  possible  to  bring  immer- 
sion into  doubt.  Let  a  man  once  know  on  which  side,  in  every  case, 
the  burden  of  proof  lies,  and  let  him  adopt  no  principle  of  interpretation 
but  what  is  self-evident,  and  he  will  never,  for  a  moment,  consider  im- 
mersion assailable. 

But  Mr.  H.  here  supposes  that  I  consider  it  impossible  for  a  word  to 
be  used  by  later  writers,  in  a  sense  different  from  its  earliest  use.  This 
is  not  truth.  Many  words  have  changed  their  meaning ;  but  in  all  cases 
of  alleged  change,  I  demand  proof  of  the  change.  What  say  you  to 
this,  Mr.  H.  ? 

Mr.  H.  is  pleased  to  say,  that  it  would  seem  to  make  no  matter  to  me, 
"  how  often  people  had  been  baptized  in  other  modes  than  immersion,  I 
would  still  maintain  my  ground."  On  what  ground  does  he  venture 
this  assertion  ?  Do  I  admit  that  people  may  be  said  to  be  baptized  in 
other  modes  than  immersion,  while  I  contend  that  nothing  but  immersion 
is  baptism  ?  If  one  instance  of  sprinkling  was  called  immersion,  I  would 


REPLY   TO    MR.   HALL.  401 

give  up  the  point  of  univocal  meaning.  The  above  assertion  of  my 
antagonist  is  grounded  on  the  following  passage  in  my  work  :  "  I  care 
not  if  there  never  had  been  a  human  being  immersed  in  water  since  the 
creation  of  the  world :  if  the  word  denotes  immersion,  and  if  Christ 
enjoins  it,  I  will  contend  for  it  as  confidently  as  if  all  nations  had  been 
daily  in  the  practice  of  immersing  each  other."  Now  does  this  language 
give  any  ground  for  Mr.  H.'s  observation  ?  What  I  say  is,  that  I  care 
not  if  there  never  had  been  one  immersion  previously  to  the  institution : 
Mr.  H.  represents  me  as  saying,  that  I  care  not  how  many  people  had 
been  baptized  in  other  modes  besides  that  of  immersion.  Is  this  a  want 
of  discernment,  or  a  want  of  honesty  ?  What  I  have  said,  I  still  say  ; 
does  Mr.  H.  pretend  to  refute  it  ?  Does  he  not  say,  "  True,  if  the  word 
means  immersion,  and  never  means  anything  else  ?"  And  is  it  not  on 
that  ground  solely,  that  the  assertion  is  rested? 

"  But  I  humbly  suppose,"  says  Mr.  H., "  that  the  common  practice  of 
a  people  who  called  a  purifying,  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  a  baptism, 
would  have  some  little  weight  upon  the  question,  what  the  people  did  in 
fact  understand  by  the  words  baptize  and  baptism."  A  people  who 
called  a  purifying,  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  a  baptism !!!  Where  is  such 
a  people?  Not  under  the  heavens.  The  facts  alleged  to  prove  this,  are 
all  mere  assumptions.  Were  they  admitted,  then  due  weight  would 
cheerfully  be  given  them. 

Section  III. — Mr.  H.  represents  me  as  esteeming  it  as  nothing, 
"  that  the  Scriptures  represent  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  uniformly  under 
the  mode  of  pouring,  *  coming  down  like  rain,'  and  shedding  forth."  Is 
this  truth?  Do  I  admit  pouring,  coming  down  like  rain,  shedding  forth, 
to  be  the  thing  that  is  called  baptism,  while  I  make  no  account  of  it?  I 
do  not,  Mr.  H.;  I  admit  that  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  is  spoken  of  under 
every  mode  of  the  motion  of  water,  but  I  contend  that  this  is  not  the 
thing  that  is  called  baptism.  Is  it  not  self-evident,  that  if  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit  is  spoken  of  under  every  mode  of  the  motion  of  water,  no  mode 
can  really  belong  to  it?  It  cannot,  then,  be  from  mode  called  sprinkling 
or  pouring.  But  if  in  baptism  it  is  a  pouring,  it  cannot  be  a  sprinkling ; 
and  if  it  is  a  sprinkling,  it  cannot  be  a  pouring 

He  quotes  from  me  the  following  sentence :  "  It  is  a  fixed  point  that 
baptism  means  immersion."  That  with  respect  to  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  "  nothing  can  be  admitted  inconsistent  with  this ;"  and  that  "  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  must  have  a  reference  to  immersion,  because  bap- 
tism is  immersion."  Mr.  H.  represents  me  as,  in  these  sentences,  taking 
the  thing  for  granted,  and  replies,  "  That  is  the  very  thing  to  be  proved." 
And,  Mr.  H.,  is  it  not  on  the  ground  that  I  have  proved  it,  that  I  have 
made  the  above  assertions?  Why  do  I  call  it  a  fixed  point?  Is  it  not 
because  I  had  fixed  the  point  ?  Is  there  a  child,  in  the  whole  range  of 
the  American  continent,  who  can  read  my  book  without  perceiving  that 
I  used  all  these  assertions  on  the  ground  of  previous  proof?  I  must 
charge  Mr.  H.  as  having  so  little  perspicacity,  for  I  am  convinced  it  is 
not  a  want  of  integrity,  as  not  to  perceive  the  nature  of  an  assumption 
without  proof.    I  will  make  this  plain  even  to  the  most  obtuse  intellect. 

51 


402  REPLY   TO    MR.    HALL. 

If  any  of  my  opponents  attempt  to  prove  that  the  word  in  question  sig- 
nifies to  pour,  or  to  sprinkle,  or  to  purify ;  afterwards,  on  the  import  of 
the  phrase,  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  I  will  allow  him  to  make  use  of  the 
result,  and  adopt  the  language  that  I  have  used.  If  he  has  found  that 
the  word  signifies  to  sprinkle,  or  to  pour,  or  to  purify,  then  he  has  a 
right  to  explain  the  phrase,  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  accordingly.  The 
figurative  meaning,  it  is  self-evident,  must  have  a  reference  to  the  literal, 
and  be  explained  in  accordance  with  it.  The  man  who  disputes  this  is 
not  worthy  of  castigation. 

With  respect  to  me,  he  adds,  "  But  he  insists  upon  it  directly  in  the 
same  page,  and  puts  his  words  in  italics,  'Pouring  cannot  be  the  figura- 
tive baptism,  because  baptism  never  literally  denotes  pouring.' "  Here 
again,  I  suppose,  he  thinks  I  beg  the  question,  or  rest  it  on  mere  asser- 
tion. Has  he  not  the  perspicacity  to  perceive  that  I  rest  this  assertion 
on  the  ground  which  I  had  already  gained  "  with  my  sword  and  my 
bow?"  Do  I  not  here  found  on  the  proof  which  I  had  previously  given 
for  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and  on  the  self-evident  principle,  that  the 
meaning  of  a  word  in  a  figurative  use  must  be  known  from  its  literal 
meaning  ?  After  all  my  proof  of  the  meaning  of  the  word,  does  my 
assertion  of  its  meaning  rest  on  this  assertion  ?  I  can  give  argument ; 
but  I  cannot  give  my  opponents  discernment. 

In  my  treatise  on  baptism  I  had  said,  that  "  Pouring  could  not  repre- 
sent the  pouring  of  the  Spirit,  because  the  Spirit  is  not  literally  poured." 
This  is  a  fact  that  common  sense  will  never  question.  It  is  so  obvious, 
that  I  am  astonished  that  it  could  be  hid  from  any.  Yet,  obvious  and 
self-evident  as  it  is,  I  believe  I  am  the  first  who  pointed  it  out.  On  this 
I  rest  as  on  the  pillar  of  heaven ;  it  is  an  axiom  that  never  can  be  ques- 
tioned by  a  sound  mind.  Is  there  any  pouring  in  the  Godhead  ?  It  is 
blasphemy  to  suppose  it.  But  Mr.  H.  very  coolly  answers  me,  "  Does 
not  God  himself  say,  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit?"  Yes,  Mr.  H.,  God 
himself  says,  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit ;  so  does  God  himself  say,  that 
he  has  hands  and  heart.  Has  he  hands  and  heart  ?  To  make  pouring 
emblematic  of  pouring  in  the  Spirit,  makes  the  Godhead  material.  I 
say  the  same  thing  with  regard  to  immersion.  Immersion  as  a  mode  can 
be  no  emblem  of  the  Spirit.  But  if  it  is  pouring  in  baptism,  as  an  em- 
blem of  the  pouring  of  the  Spirit,  how  can  sprinkling,  or  immersion,  or 
any  other  mode,  be  baptism  ? 

Nothing  can  be  more  evident  than  that  the  phrase,  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  refers  to  the  abundance  of  the  gift  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  perfectly 
similar  to  the  phrase,  "  arrows  drunk  with  blood."  Deut.  xxxii.  42 
Arrows  drunk  with  blood,  means  arrows  that  have  shed  much  blood. 
What  would  be  thought  of  the  writer  who  should  allege  that  there  must 
be  in  the  arrows  something  like  drunkenness  ?  The  Holy  Spirit  asserts 
the  very  same  sort  of  baptism  with  respect  to  Asher,  Deut.  xxxiii.  24 : 
"  He  shall  dip  his  foot  in  oil."  This  does  not  mean  that  he  was  literally 
to  dip  his  foot  in  oil ;  it  means  that  the  tribe  was  to  have  abundance 
of  oil.  He  was  not  to  be  all  immersed  in  oil ;  but  his  foot  was  to  be 
immersed.  He  was  immersed  up  to  the  ankle.  This  is  entirely  the 
same  figure  with  baptism  in  the  Spirit.     It  denotes  plenty — not  mode. 


REPLY   TO    MR.    HALL.  403 

To  be  baptized  in  the  Spirit,  is  to  have  abundance  of  the  gifts  of  the 
Spirit.  I  rest  fully  satisfied  that  no  man  of  sense  will  ever  question 
what  I  have  written  with  respect  to  pouring  and  sprinkling,  as  emblem- 
atical in  baptism. 

Section  IV. — Mr.  H.  disputes  some  of  my  examples  from  the  classics. 
Soldiers  baptized  up  to  the  middle,  he  thinks,  could  not  be  said  to  be 
immersed  or  buried.  They  could  not  be  said  to  be  wholly  immersed  or 
buried  :  but  they  are  not  said  to  be  immersed  or  buried  as  to  the  whole 
person.  Is  not  the  baptism  expressly  limited  ?  Up  to  the  middle.  This 
example  is  as  good  as  if  the  soldiers  had  been  actually  buried  in  the 
sea.  It  is  to  me  unaccountably  astonishing  that  men  will  risk  the 
credit  of  their  understanding  by  such  observations;  keeping  out  of  sight 
altogether,  that  it  is  the  law  of  our  God  that  we  are  handling.  What 
can  the  words  give  us  but  mode?  Would  a  child  imagine  that  the 
word  of  mode  should  determine  the  extent  of  an  object  subjected  to  that 
mode  ?  In  determining  the  meaning  of  the  word,  the  immersion  of  a 
joint  of  the  little  finger  is  as  good  as  the  immersion  of  the  whole  body. 

With  respect  to  the  Roman  general  who  baptized  his  hand  in  blood, 
to  write  an  inscription  for  a  trophy,  he  says,  *  Suppose  we  grant  it.  My 
pen  is  the  instrument  of  writing,  and  I  dip  it  in  the  ink  when  I  write  ; 
surely  I  never  immerse  it  in  ink  when  I  write.  When  will  our  Baptist 
brethren  cease  this  play  upon  the  word  dipping,  when  they  are  to  prove 
a  total  immersion?"  Must  I  tell  you  again  and  again,  Mr.  H.,  that  we 
never  pretend  to  prove  the  extent  of  the  immersion  from  the  word  itself? 
I  wish  to  treat  my  antagonist  with  respect ;  but  it  is  difficult  to  avoid 
an  expression  of  contempt  in  repelling  such  allegations.  We  can  prove 
a  total  immersion  ;  but  we  are  not  to  prove  it  from  the  word  itself.  He 
makes  a  distinction  in  dipping  a  pen  in  ink,  and  immersing  it.  But 
there  is  no  difference  as  to  totality  between  dip  and  immerse;  both 
may  refer  either  to  a  part  or  to  the  whole.  In  the  expression,  dip  the 
pen  in  the  ink,  there  is  an  ellipsis  of  the  part  of  the  pen  dipped,  under- 
stood from  the  commonness  of  the  operation.  Besides,  dip  is  used  as  a 
more  familiar  word  than  immerse.  What  idea  has  the  writer  of  the 
meaning  of  the  phrase,  playing  upon  a  word,  when  he  calls  this  a  play- 
ing upon  the  word  dipping  ?  Has  it  not  the  same  meaning  here  that 
it  has  every  where  else?  How,  then,  is  this  playing  upon  it?  If  we 
choose  to  be  stiff  and  stately,  can  we  not  also  say,  immerse  the  point  of 
the  pen  ?     This  is  egregious  trifling. 

With  respect  to  the  sinner  represented  by  Porphyry,  as  baptized  up 
to  his  head  in  Styx,  he  says,  "  He  is  not  immersed ;  he  is  not  buried  in 
water."  Is  he  not  immersed  as  far  as  he  is  baptized?  Would  Mr.  H. 
have  him  immersed  farther  than  he  is  said  to  be  baptized  ?  What  more 
can  be  required  than  proof  that  the  word  immerse  corresponds  to  the 
word  baptize?  Does  he  expect  that  if  the  word  will  extend  to  the  whole 
person,  it  cannot  also  be  capable  of  restriction  to  a  part  ?  Was  ever 
nonsense  so  nonsensical  ?  But  is  not  the  express  restriction  here  sub- 
joined, evidence  that,  without  such  restriction,  the  baptism  would  be 
understood  as  extending  to  the  whole  person  ? 


404  REPLY   TO    MR.    HALL. 

In  reference  to  Alexander's  soldiers  baptized  in  the  tide  up  to  the 
middle,  he  says,  that  if  this  was  immersion,  "  then,  when  our  Baptist 
ministers  wade  out  into  the  river  with  their  candidates,  then  both  the 
minister  and  the  candidates  are  immersed  without  being  put  under 
water  at  all."  Not  so  fast,  Mr.  H.  Is  this  a  fair  representation  ?  Are 
Alexander's  soldiers  said  to  be  immersed?  They  are  not :  they  are  said 
to  be  immersed  up  to  the  middle.  Is  it,  then,  Mr.  H.,  consistent  with  your 
ideas  of  truth,  to  represent,  that  either  of  those  things  was  an  immersion 
generally  ?  Alexander's  soldiers  are  expressly  said  to  be  immersed  only  in 
part :  and  in  the  situation  supposed,  the  minister  and  the  candidate  may 
be  both  said  to  be  immersed  up  to  the  middle.  In  that  situation,  the 
candidate  is  immersed  without  reference  to  a  part ;  that  is,  he  is  wholly 
immersed.  Cease  trifling,  Mr.  H. ;  it  is  about  a  law  of  Him  who  shall 
judge  the  world,  that  we  are  contending.  Could  you  not  say,  the  woman 
carried  the  child  into  the  river,  and  dipped  him  three  times  1 

Section  V. — Mr.  H.  proposes  three  inquiries,  which  I  notice  merely 
as  a  specimen  of  his  reasoning. 

1.  "What  would  the  immediate  disciples  of  our  Lord  understand  as 
the  meaning  of  the  command,  baptize?"  What  could  they  understand 
as  the  meaning  of  the  command,  but  the  thing  meant  by  the  word  ? 
The  answer  is  self-evident.  If  the  word  signified  to  sprinkle,  they 
would  so  understand  the  command ;  if  it  signified  to  pour,  they  would 
understand  the  command  accordingly :  and  if  immersion  was  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word,  they  would  understand  the  command  to  be  to  immerse. 
The  true  question  is,  what  was  the  meaning  of  the  word  ? 

2.  Mr.  H.'s  second  question  is,  "  Is  there  satisfactory  evidence  that 
they  always  administered  the  ordinance  by  immersion  ?"  To  this  I  reply, 
had  there  been  no  account  at  all  of  their  practice,  it  is  evident  that  they 
performed  the  rite  in  the  manner  commanded.  We  know  from  the  word 
itself,  what  must  have  been  their  practice,  had  there  been  no  account 
of  that  practice.  If  the  word  signified  to  immerse,  must  not  inspired 
practice  correspond  with  a  Divine  command  ?  Had  the  word  signified 
to  pour,  the  apostolical  practice  must  always  have  been  pouring.  As  it 
was  to  immerse,  it  must  have  been  always  immersion.  No  evidence  is 
essentially  necessary,  but  that  of  the  word  itself,  Apostolical  practice 
independently  proves  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  H.'s  third  question  is,  "  On  the  supposition  that  they  did  so,  is 
there  evidence  that  they  considered  that  one  mode  essential  ?"  To  this 
I  reply,  if  the  command  was  to  immerse,  is  not  the  command  the  same 
thing  to  us  as  it  was  to  them  ?  Besides,  if  the  apostles  always  practised 
immersion,  when  other  modes  were  not  only  practicable,  but  more  easy, 
their  practice  is  equal  to  a  command.  Would  they  have  practised 
immersion,  if  sprinkling  would  serve? 

With  respect  to  the  divers  baptisms,  Heb.  ix.  10,  he  says  that  Paul 
"  specifies  here,  what  washings  (baptisms)  or  purifyings  he  speaks  of; 
and  the  only  ones  which  he  specifies  are  here  performed  with  blood,  and 
with  the  ashes  of  an  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean."  Paul  specifies  no 
such  thing.    None  of  the  things  referred  to  are  a  specification  of  the 


REPLY   TO    MR.    HALL.  405 

baptism.  Does  he  refer  to  the  baptisms,  what  was  done  with  the 
sprinkling  of  blood  ?  There  is  not  the  semblance  of  truth  for  the 
assertion.  The  apostle  does  not  call  the  sprinkling  of  blood  a  baptism, 
nor  even  a  washing  of  any  kind.  He  does  not  speak  of  washing  with 
the  ashes  of  an  heifer.  The  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes 
of  an  heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean,  are  said  to  sanctify  to  the  purifying 
of  the  flesh,  but  are  not  said  to  be  baptisms.  "  These  sprinklings,"  says 
Mr.  H.,  "  Paul  calls  baptisms."  It  is  not  so,  Mr.  H.  Paul  does  not  call 
these  sprinklings,  baptisms.  Why  will  men  again  and  again  assert  what 
has  not  a  colour  of  truth  ?  It  is  painful  to  be  obliged  to  give  so  strong 
a  contradiction  to  men  who  are,  as  Christians,  worthy  of  esteem ;  but  it 
is  not  from  inadvertence  that  such  assertions  are  made ;  on  that  ground, 
it  would  claim  indulgence :  but  the  assertion  continues  to  be  made,  after 
being  a  thousand  times  contradicted.  The  subtilty  of  Satan  himself 
cannot  plausibly  contrive  to  force  these  sprinklings  into  the  divers 
baptisms. 

With  respect  to  the  opinion  of  the  Baptists  that  the  bathing  (Numb. 
xix.  17,  18)  may  be  one  of  the  divers  baptisms,  (Heb.  ix.)  Mr.  H.  ob- 
serves, "  I  am  glad  of  the  objection,  because  it  distinctly  recognises  the 
fact  that  Paul  refers  to  those  purifyings  as  among  his  divers  baptisms." 
The  Baptists  do  not  allege  this  as  an  objection ;  they  bring  it  as  an 
example.  But  how  does  it  serve  Mr.  H.  ?  He  says,  "  It  recognises  the 
purifyings  as  among  the  divers  baptisms."  It  makes  no  such  recogni- 
tion ;  it  recognises  one  of  the  purifications  as  a  baptism.  Does  that 
import  that  all  the  purifications  were  baptisms?  This  is  an  amazing 
want  of  perspicacity.  If  a  man  presents  to  a  banker  twenty  notes,  does 
the  banker  recognise  them  all  as  his,  because  he  recognises  one  of  them? 

"  But  the  objection,"  says  Mr.  H,  "  is  idle ;  as  Paul  does  not  specify 
the  bathing  as  any  part  of  what  he  means,  but  he  does  specify  the 
sprinkling."  Baptists  do  not  allege  that  Paul  specifies  the  bathing  as  a 
baptism.  It  is  enough  for  them  that  it  may  have  been  an  immersion ; 
they  need  no  information  from  the  apostle  on  the  subject.  The  apostle 
tells  them,  that  there  were  under  the  law  divers  baptisms.  He  tells 
them  nothing  more  about  these  baptisms;  but  they  are  entitled  to 
include  among  them  every  thing  that  can  come  under  the  meaning  of 
the  word.  Here,  Mr.  H.  shows  himself  deficient  as  to  first  principles. 
He  assumes  that  the  bathing,  in  Numb.  xix.  17,  18,  cannot  be  among 
the  baptisms ;  because  Paul  does  not  express  this.  Every  thing  must 
be  included  among  the  divers  baptisms  that  comes  under  the  meaning 
of  the  word,  without  any  explanation  of  the  apostle.  Paul  specifies  none 
of  the  divers  baptisms ;  but  if  there  was  a  bathing  in  any  of  the  Old 
Testament  rites,  which  was  performed  by  immersion,  then  such  bathing 
was  a  baptism.  That  the  sprinklings  referred  to  are  a  specification  of 
the  divers  baptisms,  is  a  most  unfounded  assumption.  On  similar 
grounds,  he  assures  us,  that  ver.  15  and  onward  speak  of  baptisms.  He 
might  as  well  assert,  that  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  thing  referred  to,  as 
belonging  to  the  Eleusinian  mysteries. 

"  Another  of  those  baptisms,"  says  Mr.  H.,  "  is  mentioned,  Numb, 
viii.  7."     As  I  cannot  think  that  the  author  wishes  to  impose  on  his 


406  REPLY   TO    MR.    HALL. 

readers,  I  must  say  that  an  argument  more  childishly  weak,  I  have  never 
found  in  controversy.  The  leper  was  cleansed  by  sprinkling;  but  is 
that  sprinkling  ever  called  baptism  ?  Are  such  assumptions  to  be  con- 
tinually reiterated  ?  "  As  it  is  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ,"  says 
Mr.  H.,  "  that  does  the  cleansing,  surely  it  should  be  the  spritikling  of  the 
water  in  baptism,  that  signifies  the  cleansing."  Here,  the  author  con- 
veniently overlooks  what  I  have  said  on  the  phrase,  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  Christ.  There  is  no  actual  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ  on 
the  believer.  The  application  of  the  blood  of  Christ  is  called  a  sprinkling, 
in  allusion  to  the  type, — the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice.  No 
man  of  sense  has  ever  questioned  this,  since  I  pointed  it  out.  The  man 
who  does  not  acknowledge  it,  I  cannot  think  worthy  of  being  addressed 
by  argument.  No  axiom  can  be  more  self-evident.  Neither  pouring 
nor  sprinkling  can  be  emblematical,  for  the  reasons  alleged.  But  it  is 
strange  to  astonishment,  that  the  author  did  not  see,  that  if  baptism  is 
a  sprinkling  as  an  emblem  of  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  it 
cannot  be  a  pouring  as  an  emblem  of  the  pouring  of  the  Spirit.  Yet, 
the  writer  and  many  of  my  opponents  are  so  extravagantly  inconsistent, 
that  they  take  both  emblems  out  of  the  ordinance.  Dr.  Miller  takes 
both  emblems,  while  he  acknowledges  that  Christ  has  appointed  neither. 

With  respect  to  Mark  vii.  3,  4 ;  Luke  xi.  38,  he  says :  "  The  fault  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  and  of  the  disciples,  in  the  eyes  of  the  Jews,  was,  that 
they  had  not  first  been  baptized  before  eating ;  i.  e.,  they  had  eaten  with 
unwashed  hands."  Now,  with  respect  to  facts  that  interest  the  passions 
and  prejudices,  who  can  trust  historians  who  report  documents  that 
never  see  the  light,  when  a  man  of  God  makes  such  a  representation  of 
documents  that  are  in  the  hands  of  all  his  readers?  Mr.  H.  tells  us, 
that  the  fault  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  the  eyes  of  the  Jews,  was,  that  he  had 
eaten  with  unwashed  hands.  It  is  not  a  fact.  Mr.  H.  tells  us,  that 
the  fault  of  the  disciples  was,  that  they  had  not  first  been  baptized  before 
eating.  Neither  is  this  a  fact,  Mr.  H.  The  disciples  are  charged  as 
eating  with  unwashed  hands ;  the  Lord  is  charged  as  eating  unbaptized. 
These  are  the  facts,  however  baptism  may  be  explained.  How  is  it 
consistent  with  integrity  to  confound  these  facts,  for  the  purpose  of 
drawing  the  following  conclusion :  "  The  washing  of  the  hands,  there- 
fore, was  a  baptism  1"  The  washing  of  the  hands  is  neither  here  nor 
anywhere  else  said  to  be  a  baptism  of  the  person. 

In  reference  to  my  assertion,  that  the  baptism  after  market  before 
eating  is  immersion,  he  asks,  "What  does  he  bring  to  prove  it?  The 
word  baptize !"  Here  we  have  a  note  of  admiration.  Well  may  we 
wonder  that  any  intellect  is  so  obtuse  as  not  to  perceive  that  the  proof 
objected  to,  is  the  only  proof  that  the  case  admits.  What  other  proof 
could  be  given,  than  that  such  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  Greek 
language  ?  Should  I  say  that  the  man  is  stupid  who  cannot  see  this, 
how  is  Mr.  H.  to  know  what  I  here  mean  by  the  word  stupid  ?  Is  it  not 
by  its  meaning  every  where  else?  If  it  signifies  dull  of  apprehension 
in  the  English,  is  it  not  so  to  be  understood  as  here  used  ?  Yet,  Mr. 
H.  would  call  this  proving  a  thing  by  itself,  or  assuming  the  point  in 
debate.     When  the  meaning  of  a  word  is  proved,  and  when  a  secondary 


REPLY    TO    MR.    HALL.  407 

meaning  is  not  in  proof,  it  is  self-evident  that  in  every  situation  it  has 
its  proved  meaning.     This  is  as  certain  as  proof  in  mathematics. 

Mr.  H.  tells  us  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  Jews  had  such 
a  practice.  There  is  no  need  of  such  evidence;  the  testimony  of 
the  evangelist  ought  to  be  sufficient.  It  is  a  false  first  principle  to 
assume,  that  a  fact  in  Scripture  cannot  be  believed,  unless  it  is  proved 
by  the  history  of  the  times.  This  is  not  essential  even  to  civil  history. 
He  refers  with  astonishment  to  my  assertion,  that  "  even  an  inexplicable 
difficulty  could  not  affect  the  certainty  of  my  conclusions."  Is  he 
so  little  conversant  with  the  nature  of  evidence,  as  to  think  this  a  bold 
assertion  ?  The  Bible  itself  could  not  stand  without  the  assumption  of 
its  truth.  But  in  the  question  at  issue,  there  is  not  one  inexplicable 
difficulty — indeed,  to  learning  and  skill  there  is  not  a  single  difficulty  at 
all.  I  make  the  observation  for  the  sake  of  truth  in  general,  rather  than 
its  bearing  on  this  point. 

"  To  my  mind,"  says  Mr.  H.,  "  here  is,  so  far,  demonstration — proof 
which  puts  it  beyond  my  power  to  doubt — that  sprinkling  and  pouring 
are  scriptural  modes  of  baptism."  Here  we  have  a  specimen  of  what, 
in  the  estimation  of  Mr.  H.,  is  demonstration.  Because  the  Jews  were 
displeased  with  the  disciples  for  not  washing  their  hands  before  eating, 
and  with  Jesus,  for  not  baptizing  himself  before  dinner,  therefore, 
sprinkling  or  pouring  is  a  mode  of  baptism  !  Demonstration,  admirable 
demonstration !  Because  the  Jews  had  water-pots  for  purification,  there- 
fore, sprinkling  and  pouring  are  modes  of  baptism !  Such  demonstration 
is  not  to  be  found  in  Euclid.  Even  were  immersion  out  of  the  question, 
Mr.  H.  and  the  rest  of  my  opponents,  who  allege  an  improbability  from 
this  passage,  assume  a  false  principle.  They  assume,  that  if  it  is  not 
immerse,  it  must  be  what  they  mean.  It  might  be  neither  sprinkle,  nor 
pour,  nor  purify ;  it  might  be  any  one  of  many  other  things.  This  is 
another  instance  in  which  they  assume  what  they  ought  to  prove. 

With  respect  to  Acts  ii.  17 ;  xi.  15, 16,  he  says,  "  the  mode  of  baptism 
here  spoken  of,  is  under  the  figure  of  pouring  and  shedding  forth."  The 
gift  of  the  Spirit  is  spoken  of  under  the  figure  of  pouring  and  shedding 
forth,  but  the  pouring  and  shedding  forth  are  not  called  baptism.  ,  The 
gift  of  the  Spirit  may  be  figuratively  spoken  of  under  any  mode  of  the 
figurative  object.  But  there  is  no  mode  in  the  operations  of  the  Spirit. 
The  likeness  of  the  figure  is  always  in  the  effects.  The  gift  of  the 
Spirit  is  spoken  of  under  all  the  modes  of  the  motion  of  water.  Does 
this  imply,  that  any  one  of  these  motions  is  the  same  as  any  other  ?  or, 
that  there  is  any  real  motion  in  the  Spirit  like  the  motion  of  water? 
Surely  any  portion  of  discernment  may  perceive  that  the  same  object 
may  be  figured  under  different  modes.  Moses  says,  "  My  doctrine  shall 
drop  as  the  rain,  my  speech  shall  distil  as  the  dew."  Is  the  dropping  of 
rain  the  same  figure  with  the  distilling  of  dew  ?  And  is  there  any 
likeness  in  mode,  between  doctrine  and  the  thing  referred  to?  Nothing 
but  ignorance  of  the  philosophy  of  language  could  embolden  our  oppo- 
nents to  use  such  arguments.  May  not  a  child  perceive,  that  if  the  gift 
of  the  Spirit  is  spoken  of,  both  as  a  pouring  and  a  shedding  forth,  the 
likeness  in  the  figure  cannot  be  in  mode,  as  the  same  motion  cannot 


408  REPLY    TO    MR.    HALL. 

have  two  modes  ?  Shall  I  never  be  able  to  teach  my  opponents,  that 
whenever  mode  is  ascribed  to  the  Spirit,  the  phraseology  is  accommo- 
dated to  the  emblem — instead  of  mode  being  employed  as  an  emblem  ? 
Speaking  with  respect  to  pouring,  sprinkling,  &c,  he  says :  "  I  cannot 
but  wonder  that  those  who  insist  so  much  upon  the  words,  '  buried  with 
him  in  baptism,'  are  not  able  to  see  in  these  also  an  equal  authority  for 
proper  modes  of  baptism."  A  very  little  penetration  would  entirely  relieve 
the  patient  from  this  malady.  His  wonder,  as  in  most  instances,  would 
cease,  with  a  little  more  knowledge.  Baptists  cannot  but  see  immersion 
in  the  phrases  "  buried  in  baptism,"  and  "  buried  by  baptism ;"  because 
believers  cannot  be  buried  in  baptism  without  being  immersed  in  the 
water  of  baptism.  They  cannot  see  a  mode  of  baptism  in  sprinkling, 
pouring,  shedding  forth,  falling  as  rain,  and  because  none  of  these  are 
ever  called  baptism.  Cannot  Mr.  H.  see,  that  if  pouring  and  sprinkling 
are  both  applied  to  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  without  implying  that  they  are 
the  same  mode,  immersion  may  likewise  be  applied  to  the  same  gift, 
while  it  is  a  mode  different  from  both  ? 

Section  VI. — Mr.  H.  thinks  it  strange  that  Baptists  dwell  so  much  on 
the  much  water  at  Enon,  while  they  find  enough  in  Jerusalem  to  baptize 
three  thousand  converts  in  a  small  part  of  one  day.  Here  he  thinks  he 
has  shut  us  up  in  a  dilemma,  from  which  there  is  no  escape.  We  must 
either  give  up  a  sufficiency  of  water  in  Jerusalem,  or  we  must  set  no 
value  on  the  abundance  of  it  in  Enon.  But  a  little  discrimination 
would  have  prevented  this  observation.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
inconsistency  in  our  sentiments  on  this  subject.  The  writer  assumes 
that  we  think  that  John  the  Baptist  declined  Jerusalem  for  want  of 
water.  This  is  not  the  fact :  he  chose  the  wilderness  for  other  reasons, 
and  in  the  wilderness  he  chose  the  place  most  fit  for  his  purpose  of 
baptism.  Had  there  been  a  lake  at  Jerusalem,  John  would  have  chosen 
the  wilderness  as  the  station  of  his  labours.  He  thinks  it  strange,  also, 
that  if  the  much  water  in  Enon  was  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  baptism, 
we  never  hear  a  complaint  about  the  want  of  water  with  the  apostles. 
The  apostles,  however,  did  not  confine  themselves  to  the  wilderness  ;  and, 
wherever  they  went,  they  could  find  as  much  water  as  would  immerse 
their  converts.  For  the  multitudes  baptized  by  John  at  the  same  place, 
much  water  was  necessary  ;  no  such  thing  was  necessary  for  the  immer- 
sion of  a  few. 

Much  water,  he  says,  was  necessary  for  supplying  John's  hearers 
with  drink,  as  he  wrought  no  miracle.  Our  Lord  had  as  great  crowds 
to  hear  him,  yet  he  did  not  supply  them  miraculously  with  drink.  John 
is  not  said  to  have  preached  at  Enon,  because  there  was  much  water 
there.  Not  only  is  the  drink  apocryphal,  but  the  use  of  the  water  is 
expressly  stated.  He  baptized  at  Enon  because  there  was  much  water. 
It  is  also  stated,  that  it  was  to  be  baptized  the  people  went. 

He  quotes  from  travellers  an  account  of  the  destitution  of  water  in 
the  wilderness  of  Judea.  Well,  was  not  this  the  very  reason  why  John 
baptized  in  Enon  ?  He  could  have  sprinkled  any  where.  He  thinks 
it  might  be  necessary  for  purification.     But  there  is  no  purification  in 


REPLY    TO    MR.    HALL.  409 

the  narrative.  Perhaps  it  was  for  swimming,  or  sailing,  that  the  much 
water  was  necessary.  Is  there  no  end  to  extravagance ?  But  for  puri- 
fication it  could  not  be  necessary,  as  they  need  not  delay  a  moment  after 
baptism.  The  Spirit  of  God  assigns  the  use  of  the  much  water ;  dare 
arrogant  mortals  give  another  and  a  different  use? 

Section  VII. — With  respect  to  our  Lord's  baptism,  Mr.  H.  tells 
us,  that  "  the  original  language  here  is  such  as  can  have  no  reference 
to  emerging  from  under  water."  He  alleges  a  concession  of  mine  with 
respect  to  the  preposition  apo ;  but  he  does  not,  it  seems,  understand 
the  criticism.  Apo  commences  its  motion  from  the  object:  the  edge  of 
the  object,  then,  is  a  fulfilment  of  its  meaning.  But  it  is  obvious  that  it 
may  commence  in  any  part  of  the  object,  while  its  commencement  is 
still  equally  from  the  object.  Accordingly,  it  is  frequently  used  when 
the  motion  commences  within  the  object :  but  for  the  reason  alleged,  it 
cannot  definitely  express  this.  To  express  this  definitely,  ek  is  necessary. 
But  to  say,  with  Mr.  H.,  that  the  Greek  language  forbids  the  idea  of 
emerging  from  under  water,  is  unwarranted  by  the  use  of  the  word.  It 
does  not  decisively  express  that  idea,  but  it  may  be  used  when  the 
motion  commenced  in  any  point  in  the  water. 

As  to  the  verb,  I  suppose  Mr.  H.  rests  on  the  authority  of  Professor 
Stuart,  of  Andover.  But  I  tell  both  these  gentlemen,  that  the  verb  does 
not  forbid  emersion.  On  the  contrary,  the  verb,  compounded  with  Icata, 
is  used  by  iEsop  as  signifying  to  dive.  When  Mercury,  compassionating 
the  woodman  who  let  his  axe  drop  into  the  river,  dived  three  times,  one 
of  the  dips  was  by  Jcataduo,  and  the  other  two  by  katabas.  Anabas, 
then,  would  be  the  exact  word  for  emerging,  corresponding  to  the  word 
that  expresses  the  diving. 

I  will  tell  Mr.  H.  another  secret.  Justin  Martyr  uses  the  word 
anaduntos  (emerging)  instead  of  anabainontos,  in  relating  this  transac- 
tion. Did  not  Justin  know,  as  well  as  Mr.  H.,  what  is  consistent  with 
the  original  language?  We  have  Justin's  authority  that  this  account 
of  the  evangelist  refers  to  the  immersion  and  emersion  of  Jesus.  He 
understood  the  passage  as  asserting  that  the  Spirit  of  God  descended  on 
Jesus  as  he  emerged  from  the  water ;  and  he  uses  the  very  preposition 
apo,  which  Mr.  H.  represents  as  precluding  the  idea  of  emersion.  After 
all,  I  freely  admit  that  the  phrase  itself  is  not  decisive.  It  would 
be  amply  verified  if  the  motion  commenced  at  the  edge  of  the  water. 
Instead  of  being  a  partisan  to  force  evidence  it  will  ever  be  my  purpose 
to  represent  evidence  as  in  the  sight  of  God  Let  my  opponents  take 
this  concession  also.  I  am  too  strong  in  truth,  to  be  afraid  of  conceding 
anything  that  truth  requires.  But  is  it  not  absurd  to  ground  anything 
here  on  the  difference  between  apo  and  ek,  when  we  have  ek  in  the  case 
of  the  eunuch  ? 

He  alleges  that  the  phrase,  coming  up  out  of  the  water,  "  does  not 
necessarily  imply  that  one  has  been  under  water."  Very  true ;  but  if 
persons  are  represented  as  going  into  water  for  the  performance  of  a 
certain  rite,  there  must  be  something  in  the  nature  of  the  rite  that 
obliges  them  to  go  there,  in  order  to  perform  the  rite.     Perverseness 

52 


410  REPLY   TO    MR.    HALL. 

may  cavil,  but  no  fair  answer  can  ever  be  given  to  this.     If  the  answer 
usually  given  can  satisfy  any  conscience,  I  do  not  envy  that  conscience. 

Section  VIII. — Mr.  H.  thinks  that  Jesus  was  baptized  as  a  priest, 
and,  therefore,  that  he  was  purified  by  sprinkling.  He  was  not  baptized 
as  a  priest.  This  is  extravagantly  absurd.  1.  John's  baptism  did  not 
belong  to  the  old  dispensation.  It  made  no  distinction  between  priests 
and  the  rest  of  the  Jews.  2.  Jesus  could  not  be  baptized  as  a  priest, 
because  he  was  not  of  the  priesthood  to  which  the  Levitical  ceremonies 
belonged :  these  belonged  only  to  the  priesthood  of  the  tribe  of  Levi 
and  of  the  house  of  Aaron.  3.  Had  he  been  consecrated  as  a  Levitical 
priest,  all  the  ceremonies  of  consecration  would  have  been  employed  as 
well  as  sprinkling.  4.  John  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  consecration  of 
priests.  5.  It  was  the  baptism  that  others  received  from  John  to  which 
Jesus  submitted.  6.  Justin  Martyr  had  a  better  view  of  the  necessity 
of  baptism  with  respect  to  Jesus.  He  was  not  baptized,  he  said,  for  his 
own  sins,  but  for  the  sins  of  the  human  race,  which  had  fallen  under 
death  by  the  seduction  of  the  serpent.  There  was  in  Christ's  immersion 
the  same  figure  as  in  that  of  his  people.  They  are  cleared  of  sin  by 
fellowship  with  him  in  his  death,  which  is  figured  in  their  burial  with 
him  by  baptism.  He  took  their  sins  off  them,  and  cancelled  them  by 
his  death :  the  blood  of  his  death  washed  them  away.  His  own 
baptism,  then,  had  as  much  propriety  in  the  figure  as  the  baptism  of  his 
people. 

Section  IX. — Mr.  H.,  as  well  as  Dr.  Miller,  adopts  the  silly  evasion, 
with  respect  to  Philip  and  the  eunuch  going  into  the  water,  which  alleges 
that  it  equally  proves  that  they  were  both  immersed,  if  it  proves  that 
either  of  them  was  immersed.  He  entirely  mistakes  the  argument.  No 
man  reasons  so  foolishly  as  to  assert  that  every  one  who  is  in  water  must 
be  totally  immersed.  The  argument  is,  that  nothing  but  the  necessity 
of  immersion,  as  to  one  of  them,  could  take  them  both  into  the  water. 
Indeed,  what  can  be  the  use  of  telling  us  that  they  went  into  the  water, 
if  it  is  not  for  our  instruction  ? 

He  tells  us,  that  it  is  not  certain  "  that  they  went  farther  than  to  the 
river."  What !  Not  certain  that  they  went  into  the  river  ?  How, 
then,  could  they  come  out  of  it?  If  I  have  admitted  this  as  to  apo,  I 
have  not  admitted  it  as  to  eh.  He  gives  us  a  number  of  passages  in 
which  eis,  the  preposition  signifying  into,  signifies  unto.  This  is  no  news 
to  us ;  it  needed  no  proof.     Our  proof  is  independent  of  this. 

"Who  will  prove  to  me,"  says  Mr.  H.,  "that  the  stream  was  a  foot 
deep  1"  If  he  means  proof  independent  of  the  passage,  there  is  no  need 
of  such  proof.  A  controversialist  that  knows  his  business  will  never 
attempt  this ;  nor  will  he  demand  it.  The  proof  is,  that  Philip  and  the 
eunuch  went  into  it  in  order  to  the  performance  of  the  rite,  and  nothing 
but  immersion  could  make  it  necessary  to  go  into  the  water.  If  the  bap- 
tism was  an  immersion,  I  suppose  that  it  may  be  taken  for  granted  that 
the  water  was  deep  enough  for  immersion.  Had  pouring  or  sprinkling 
been  used,  they  would  neither  of  them  have  gone  into  the  water. 


REPLY    TO    MR.    HALL.  411 

"Who,"  says  Mr.  H.,  "  will  prove  it  a  stream  at  all?"  Wisdom  will 
never  undertake  the  proof — wisdom  will  never  ask  the  question.  Whether 
it  was  a  fountain  or  a  pond,  a  river  or  a  lake,  makes  no  difference. 
Could  any  fact  in  history  afford  proof  on  such  a  principle  1  Indeed,  had 
there  been  no  mention  of  water,  and  had  it  been  in  a  desert,  the  word 
baptize  proves  that  there  must  have  been  water  for  immersion.  What 
folly  is  it,  then,  when  the  water  is  mentioned,  to  demand  proof  that  it 
was  a  stream ! 

"  Who  will  prove,"  he  asks,  "  the  quantity  of  water  there  was  suffi- 
cient to  render  an  immersion  possible  1"  If  they  went  into  the  water 
for  the  purpose  of  performing  the  ordinance,  pouring  or  sprinkling  a 
little  water  could  not  have  been  the  thing  performed.  If,  then,  immer- 
sion is  the  only  thing  that  will  give  a  reason  for  their  going  into  the 
water,  there  is  proof  that  the  water  was  deep  enough  for  immersion. 

"  If  it  was,"  he  continues,  "  who  will  prove  that  the  eunuch  was  im- 
mersed?" The  passage  proves  it.  He  was  the  person  baptized,  and  to 
perforin  the  baptism  they  went  into  the  water. 

Mr.  H.  thinks  that  there  is  some  probability  in  favour  of  sprinkling 
on  this  occasion.  Philip  expounded  the  chapter  of  the  prophecy  which 
the  eunuch  was  reading  :  in  that  chapter  there  is  something  about  sprink- 
ling :  this  would  naturally  bring  on  a  conversation  about  baptism,  which 
is  sprinkling,  &c.  &c.  Am  I  to  refute  dreams  and  visions?  But  the 
dream,  like  other  dreams,  is  inconsistent.  It  supposes  that  sprinkling 
is  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptism,  which  is  inconsistent  with  the 
author's  theory.  He  gives  it  a  general  meaning,  though  I  cannot  dis- 
cover exactly  what  that  general  meaning  is.  Whatever  it  is,  it  must 
include  all  modes,  and  therefore  it  cannot  be  modal  at  all.  Here  he 
makes  it  one  precise  mode. 

Section  X. — With  respect  to  Rom.  vi.  1,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  he  says, 
"  There  is  just  as  much  reason  to  argue  from  them  that  believers  are 
literally  put  to  death  in  baptism,  as  that  they  are  literally  buried  under 
water  in  baptism."  To  this  I  reply,  that  they  are  literally  immersed, 
but  the  burial  is  equally  figurative  as  the  death ;  and  they  die  in  baptism 
as  well  as  they  are  buried  in  baptism.  Indeed,  it  is  by  being  buried,  that 
they  die.  That  this  figurative  burial  is  under  water  is  not  in  the  pas- 
sage :  this  is  known  from  the  rite,  and  is  here  supplied  by  ellipsis. 

"  They  are  planted  together,"  says  the  author,  "  in  the  likeness  (not 
of  his  grave  or  burial)  but  in  the  likeness  of  his  death."  This  is  ex- 
quisite criticism.  He  here  confounds  burying  and  planting.  Are  not 
these  two  different  things,  and  have  we  not  here  two  figures?  Believers 
are  said  to  be  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism,  and  to  be  planted  with 
him  in  the  likeness  of  his  death.  The  burying  and  the  planting  both 
refer  to  baptism,  but  they  are  not  the  same  figure,  but  exhibit  the  object 
in  a  different  point  of  view. 

"  If,"  says  Mr.  H,  "  we  are  to  infer  the  mode  of  baptism  from  these 
figures,  the  evidence  is  strongest  for  drawing  a  resemblance  for  the  mode 
of  baptism  from  hanging  on  the  cross,  for  that  was  the  mode  of  his 
dying ;  and  the  passage  says,  we  are  crucified  with  him."     How  extra- 


412  REPLY   TO    MR.  HALL. 

vagantly  absurd  is  this !  We  are,  indeed,  said  to  be  crucified  with  Christ, 
but  are  we  said  to  be  crucified  in  baptism  ?  But  we  are  said  to  be  buried 
in  baptism.  Besides,  crucifixion  is  still  a  different  thing  from  both 
planting  and  burial.  Does  he  expect  the  same  likeness  in  all  ?  Are  we 
said  to  be  crucified  in  baptism  in  the  likeness  of  Christ's  death?  There 
is  no  criticism  in  these  observations. 

"  The  argument,"  says  the  writer,  "  is,  We  are  dead  with  Christ,  and 
we  must  no  more  live  to  sin  than  a  dead  body  must  live."  I  am  not 
sure  that  I  understand  this  commentary.  What  is  meant  by  the  phrase, 
"  than  a  dead  body  must  live?"  I  suppose,  by  the  phrase,  must  not  live 
to  sin,  he  means  the  duty  of  not  living  to  sin.  But  in  the  contrast  he 
cannot  mean  the  duty  of  a  dead  body.  A  dead  body  cannot  live ;  the 
contrast,  then,  would  be  that  believers  cannot  live  in  sin  more  than  a 
dead  body  can  live.  This  supposes  that  the  security  against  being  in 
sin  is  the  total  extinction  of  sin  in  the  Christian.  I  do  not  understand 
this  theology. 

"We  are  dead,"  says  Mr.  H.,  "  and  more — we  are  buried;  as  we  often 
say,  to  express  strongly  the  fact  that  a  person  has  ceased  from  living, 
He  is  dead  and  buried."  But,  Mr.  H.,  this  is  not  the  apostle's  phrase- 
ology ;  he  does  not  say  that  believers  are  dead  and  buried,  but  that  they 
are  buried  into  death,  and  that  burial  into  death  is  in  and  by  baptism. 
Believers  are  not  merely  said  to  be  dead  and  buried,  but  to  die  and  to 
be  buried  in  baptism.  They  are  buried  by  baptism  into  death.  Twist 
and  twist  as  you  will,  still  there  is  burial  in  baptism.  There  must  be 
something  in  baptism  to  emblematize  death  and  burial ;  no  sophistry  can 
evade  this.  "  The  burying,"  says  he,  "  is  the  conclusive  token  of  his 
being  dead."  But,  I  ask,  how  is  the  token  found  in  baptism,  if  it  is 
not  in  its  mode  ?  There  is  no  token  of  death  in  pouring  or  sprinkling. 
"So,"  continues  Mr.  H.,  "the  baptism  is  a  token — not  of  the  burying 
— but  of  the  death."  Why  does  he  so  directly  contradict  the  apostle  ? 
Does  not  Paul  expressly  say,  that  we  are  buried  in  baptism  and  by  bap- 
tism, which  necessarily  imports  that  there  is  a  burial  in  baptism  ?  But 
how  is  baptism  a  token  of  death,  if  there  is  no  figurative  death  in  bap- 
tism ?  How  is  baptism  a  token  of  death,  but  by  its  being  a  burial  ?  The 
death  here  spoken  of  takes  place  in  the  burial.  Believers  are  buried 
into  death.  It  is  not,  they  die  and  are  buried,  but,  they  are  buried 
and  die. 

"  It  is  not,"  says  Mr.  H.,  "  the  mode  of  the  baptism  that  is  referred 
to,  but  the  effect  of  the  baptism."  What !  the  mode  of  baptism  not  re- 
ferred to  in  the  phrase,  buried  in  baptism!  Can  there  be  any  figurative 
burial,  without. something  to  represent  the  body  as  buried?  But  what 
is  the  effect  of  baptism?  Mr.  H.,  as  plainly  as  Dr.  Pusey  could  do,  tells 
us  that  it  is  the  crucifixion  of  the  old  man.  No  wonder  that  this  leprosy 
of  Oxford  has  spread  so  widely  in  the  Church  of  England.  But  Mr.  H., 
it  is  not  the  effect  of  baptism,  whatever  that  effect  may  be  supposed  to  be, 
that  is  here  referred  to.  Our  old  man  is  indeed  here  said  to  be  crucified 
with  Christ,  but  not  in  baptism.     There  is  in  baptism  no  crucifixion. 

The  argument  which  we  draw  from  1  Cor.  x.  1,  and  1  Pet.  iii.  21, 
Mr.  H.  understands  to  be  rested  on  the  quantity  of  water  in  the  Red 


REPLY   TO    MR.    HALL.  413 

Sea,  and  in  the  deluge.  I  can  see  neither  wit  nor  refutation  in  this. 
He  knows  well,  what  we  have  said  on  these  passages.  But  he  tells  us, 
that  the  eight  souls  "  were  in  the  ark,  and  neither  buried  nor  immersed." 
What  could  be  a  more  expressive  burial  in  water  than  to  be  in  the  ark, 
when  it  was  floating  ?  As  well  might  it  be  said  that  a  person  is  not 
buried  in  earth,  when  lying  in  his  coffin  covered  with  earth.  May  not 
persons  in  a  ship  be  said  figuratively  to  be  buried  in  the  sea  ?  They 
who  were  in  the  ark  were  deeply  immersed. 

"  Moses,"  Mr.  H.  tells  us,  "  walked  on  dry  ground."  Yes,  and  he  got 
a  dry  dip.  And  could  not  a  person,  literally  covered  with  oil-cloth,  get 
a  dry  immersion  in  water  ?  Are  not  the  Israelites  said  to  go  into  the 
sea?  Was  it  sea  where  they  walked?  It  is  called  sea  on  a  principle 
similar  to  that  on  which  it  is  called  baptism. 

Mr.  H.'s  charge  of  failure  in  making  out  an  immersion  in  the  case 
of  the  ark,  and  of  the  passage  of  the  Israelites  through  the  Red  Sea, 
shows  a  total  inattention  to  the  processes  of  thought  in  language. 

"Few,  few  shall  part,  where  many  meet; 
The  snow  shall  be  their  winding  sheet ; 
And  every  turf  beneath  their  feet 
Shall  be  a  soldier's  sepulchre." 

Would  any  Goth  object  that  the  snow  cannot  be  a  winding  sheet, 
because  it  does  not  wind  round  the  whole  body  of  the  dying  soldier? 
As  the  soldier,  says  the  critic,  was  uncovered  above,  the  snow  cannot  be 
his  winding  sheet.  And  is  he  not  a  Goth,  who  says  that  the  Israelites 
could  not  be  buried  or  immersed  in  the  sea,  because  they  were  not 
covered  with  the  water  ?  But  our  critic  must  proceed.  As  the  soldier 
lies  on  the  turf  without  any  covering  from  it,  it  cannot  be  said  to  be  the 
soldier's  sepulchre.     What  sort  of  criticism  is  this? 

"  Look  into  my  face,  dear  cousin,"  said  one  pitted  by  the  small-pox, 
"  and  tell  me,  are  there  not  pit-holes  deep  enough  to  bury  a  million  of 
Cupids?"  The  critic  replies,  with  triumph,  "However  deep  the  pits 
may  be,  no  one  can  be  buried  in  them,  seeing  they  are  open  at  top." 
This  is  the  very  criticism  of  our  opponents. 

If  Mr.  H.  is  unreasonably  obstinate  in  not  finding  an  immersion  here, 
he  makes  ample  amends  by  his  facility  in  finding  spray  for  sprinkling. 
But  not  only  is  the  spray  a  creation  of  the  imagination,  it  is  a  creation 
unsuitable  to  the  occasion.  It  would  have  been  an  annoyance ;  and  the 
wind  that  blew  the  water  from  them  could  not  blow  the  spray  on  them. 
Yes,  and  the  very  tempest  that  God  sent  on  their  enemies  for  their 
destruction,  Mr.  H.  employs  for  the  baptism  of  the  host  of  Israel,  Psalm 
lxxvii.  On  the  Israelites  there  was  neither  spray,  nor  rain,  nor  storm. 
Will  Mr.  H.  say,  what  is  the  baptism  of  the  Red  Sea? 

Mr.  H.  comes  next  to  the  consideration  of  a  number  of  passages  in 
which  he  alleges  that  we  are  compelled  to  take  the  labouring  oar,  and 
render  that  certain  or  probable,  which  in  the  face  of  it  seems  impossible. 
Here,  Mr.  H.  manifests  that  he  has  insufficient  skill  in  the  fundamental 
laws  of  controversy.  I  tell  him,  that  in  these  instances,  proof  does  not 
lie  on  us  :  we  are  not  bound  to  prove,  independently  of  the  word,  that 


414  REPLY   TO    MR.    HALL. 

there  was  a  sufficiency  of  water  in  any  of  the  situations  referred  to.  If 
we  have  proved  the  meaning  of  the  word,  the  word  commands  the 
water,  in  opposition  to  any  number  of  improbabilities.  The  proof  of 
impossibility  lies  on  him.  Go,  then,  Mr.  H.,  and  study  the  principles 
of  reasoning.  You  should  know  when  it  is  your  duty  to  prove,  and 
when  you  have  the  privilege  of  calling  on  your  antagonist  to  prove. 

I  tell  Mr.  H.  that  I  can  immerse  the  three  thousand  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  without  the  assistance  of  the  brook  Kedron,  or  any  proof 
from  history.  I  will  not  take  the  trouble  even  to  gauge  the  ponds  and 
reservoirs  in  Jerusalem.  There  may  have  been  many  conveniences  on 
that  occasion  in  Jerusalem,  of  which  we  can  know  nothing.  This  is 
enough  for  me,  had  it  been  situated  in  a  desert.  I  have  been  formerly 
too  good-natured  in  making  faith  easy  to  my  opponents,  by  putting  the 
water  before  their  eyes :  I  shall,  henceforth,  oblige  them  to  go  and  look 
for  it. 

"  Now,"  says  Mr.  H.,  "  what  do  those  who  make  John  take  Jerusalem 
and  Judea  out  to  Enon,  to  immerse  them,  because  there  is  much  water 
there?  All  at  once,  and  very  conveniently,  there  are  discovered  a 
number  of  reservoirs  and  baths."  Here,  surely,  he  has  got  us  into  a  net ; 
but  it  is  a  weak  fish  that  cannot  break  the  meshes  of  this  net.  The 
author  founds  on  a  false  assumption :  he  assumes  that  John  avoided 
Jerusalem  for  want  of  a  sufficiency  of  water.  This  is  not  the  fact.  Had 
there  been  a  lake  in  Jerusalem,  John  would  have  chosen  the  wilder- 
ness ;  and  in  the  wilderness  he  chose  the  place  most  convenient  for  the 
immersion  of  great  multitudes.  If  we  refer  to  the  number  of  reservoirs, 
and  baths,  and  pools  in  Jerusalem,  it  is  out  of  compassion  for  the  weak- 
ness of  our  opponents.  In  a  city  where  purifications  by  bathing  were 
every  day  so  numerous,  with  respect  to  both  rich  and  poor,  there  could 
be  no  want  of  conveniences  for  immersion.  But  I  care  not  if  there 
were  not  in  proof  a  single  pool  in  the  city  :  I  will  force  water  out  of  the 
word,  as  used  hi  the  ordinance,  although  there  is  no  water  in  the  word 
itself. 

But  "  a  simple  mathematical  calculation,"  says  Mr.  H.,  "  will  show 
that  the  eleven  apostles  could  hardly  have  immersed  three  thousand 
persons  in  so  short  a  time." 

Here  again  Mr.  H.  grounds  on  a  false  assumption.  He  assumes  that 
none  but  the  apostles  baptized.  Where  is  this  taught  ?  I  promise,  in 
the  name  of  Dr.  Pusey,  to  offer  him  a  premium  if  he  will  prove  this 
What  a  great  evil  is  superstition?  To  make  anything  necessary  in  reli- 
gion, that  God  has  not  commanded,  is  to  lay  a  foundation  for  Babylon 
the  Great.  Mr.  H.  thinks  he  has  here  the  certainty  of  mathematical 
calculation,  when  his  reasoning  is  founded  on  his  superstition. 

Next  comes  the  jailer.  Mr.  H.  thinks  that  he  makes  out  a  strong 
point  of  inconsistency  on  our  part,  when  he  observes  that  we  find  means 
of  immersion  even  in  a  prison,  while  we  are  obliged  to  send  John  to 
Jordan  and  Enon.  But  I  have  shown  that  the  appearance  of  inconsist- 
ency here,  is  in  the  false  conceptions  of  those  who  allege  it.  We  did  not 
send  John  out  of  Jerusalem  for  want  of  water  :  he  chose  the  wilderness 
as  the  theatre  of  his  labours,  and  chose  such  places  in  it  as  suited  the 


REPLY   TO    MR.    HALL.  415 

immersion  of  such  multitudes  as  came  to  his  baptism.  Does  this  imply 
that  water  may  not  be  found  in  any  inhabited  part  of  the  country  suffi- 
cient to  baptize  individuals  ?  Shame  to  common  sense  if  it  stumble  here ! 
He  tells  us  with  an  air  of  triumph,  that  there  is  not  a  "  scrap  of 
evidence  in  the  history,  to  show  that  an  immersion  was  possible." 
Here,  again,  I  arraign  my  antagonist  as  ignorant  of  his  duty  as  a 
controversialist.  He  comes  into  the  arena,  without  a  knowledge  of 
the  laws  of  the  tournament.  He  calls  on  us  for  proof,  when  proof 
lies  on  himself.  We  are  bound  to  prove  the  meaning  of  the  word.  If 
an  objector  alleges  the  inapplicability  of  such  a  meaning  in  any  case,  he 
is  bound  to  prove  that  it  is  inapplicable.  An  unproved  objection  is  no 
objection.  Is  there  in  the  passage  any  proof  of  the  possibility  even  of 
sprinkling  1  It  may  be  alleged  that  there  is  no  need  of  this.  I  admit 
the  truth  of  this ;  but  this  shows  us  that  there  is  no  need  of  proof  from 
the  passage,  that  the  thing  asserted  was  possible.  That  it  was  possible, 
is  assumed  in  the  word,  whatever  the  word  may  signify.  If  we  read 
that  a  sportsman  was  drowned  in  crossing  a  certain  district,  are  we 
obliged  to  prove  the  existence  of  a  river  or  pond,  before  we  know  the 
meaning  of  the  word  drowned?  Were  we  even  certain  that  in  that 
district,  there  was  not  as  much  water  as  would  cover  him,  we  should 
discredit  the  report,  but  never  question  the  meaning  of  the  word.  The 
meaning  of  no  word  could,  in  every  instance,  be  proved,  if  it  is  not 
lawful,  in  cases  in  which  context  does  not  decide,  to  rest  on  previous 
proof:  the  meaning  of  no  word  could  in  any  case  be  proved,  if  it  is 
necessary,  in  every  case,  to  prove  the  possibility  of  the  alleged  meaning 
by  historical  evidence.  The  confidence  of  our  opponents  rests  entirely 
on  the  assumption  of  false  principles.  Instead  of  thinking  myself  obliged 
to  prove  the  existence  of  a  bath  in  the  jailer's  house  of  Philippi,  or  the 
possibility  of  going  to  the  Strymon,  I  utterly  refuse  to  be  called  on  for 
proof.  I  prove  the  possibility  of  immersion,  by  the  fact  that  there  was 
an  immersion. 

Mr.  H.  thinks  he  finds  an  inconsistency  in  us  in  flying  from  the  bath  to 
the  river.  Here,  again,  he  has  demonstration.  "  Now,"  says  he,  "  this 
is  to  give  up  the  baptism  in  a  bath  within  the  prison ;  for  I  take  it  as 
a  point  not  to  be  debated,  that  he  was  not  baptized  both  in  the  prison 
and  out  of  it,  in  one  and  the  same  baptism."  This  has,  to  superficial 
thinkers,  an  appearance  of  acuteness,  but  it  really  manifests  a  want  of 
discernment.  In  holding  the  possibility  of  an  immersion,  both  in  the 
jail  and  in  the  river,  are  we  bound  to  hold  that  it  was  actually  per- 
formed in  both  1  Can  any  intellect  make  such  an  assertion  ?  We 
might  prove  the  probability  of  immersion  in  a  third  different  place, 
while  we  believe  that  it  actually  takes  place  only  in  one.  I  believe  that 
the  passage  affords  evidence  that  the  immersion  takes  place  without, 
yet  I  shall  strenuously  contend  for  the  possibility  of  immersion  in  the 
jail. 

With  respect  to  Paul's  baptism,  Mr.  H.  asks,  "  What  pretence  for  a 
bath  in  the  chamber?"  What  pretence,  I  reply,  for  denying  the  pos- 
sibility of  a  bath  in  this  chamber  ?  And  a  possibility  is  all  I  want,  to 
enable  me  to  work  the  miracle.     I  ask  in  return,  what  is  the  necessity 


416  REPLY   TO    MR.    HALL. 

of  confining  the  baptism  to  this  chamber  ?  Where  did  you  learn  that 
they  did  not  go  to  another  chamber  ?  Where  did  you  learn  that  they 
did  not  go  out  of  the  house  altogether?  Where  or  how  the  immersion 
was  performed,  I  neither  know  nor  care.  All  I  know  is,  and  that  I 
thoroughly  know,  Paul  was  immersed ;  for  the  word  tells  me  this.  Will 
my  opponents  learn  when  they  are  to  prove,  and  when  they  may  demand 
proof?  But  I  refuse  to  give  proof,  though  I  have  proof.  Paul  was 
bathed  in  baptism,  therefore  he  was  immersed.  In  Judea,  where  the  law 
forced  them  so  often  into  the  water,  baths  must  have  been  as  common 
as  ovens  in  English  farm-houses. 

In  the  account  of  the  baptism  of  Cornelius,  Mr.  H.  thinks  that  the 
idea  of  Peter  "  seems  to  be,  not  that  they  might  be  carried  and  applied 
to  the  water,  but  that  water  might  be  brought  and  applied  to  them." 
Whether  they  were  to  go  to  the  water,  or  the  water  was  to  be  brought 
to  them,  is  not  in  evidence  from  the  document.  And  the  water  might 
have  been  brought  for  immersion  as  well  as  sprinkling,  even  had  it  been 
implied  that  the  water  was  brought.  "  The  Spirit's  mode  of  baptism," 
he  tells  us,  "  was  by  falling  upon."  The  Spirit  is  indeed  said  to  fall 
upon  them,  but  that  falling  is  not  called  baptism.  There  is  no  mode  in 
the  operation  of  the  Spirit.  Whether  the  Spirit  is  said  to  fall  on  per- 
sons, or  to  be  poured  on  them,  or  they  are  said  to  be  immersed  in  the 
Spirit,  there  is  no  mode  in  the  working  of  the  Spirit. 

"  That  immersion,"  says  Mr.  H.,  "  was  early  and  extensively  prac- 
tised is  certain.  That  it  was  not  considered  essential  is  also  certain." 
It  is  true  that  very  early  in  cases  of  necessity,  pouring  water  around 
persons  on  a  sick  bed,  was  admitted  a  substitute  for  immersion ;  but 
it  is  not  true  that  they  called  the  substitute  by  the  name  of  baptism. 
Now  it  is  only  with  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  writings  of  the 
earliest  fathers  that  we  have  any  concern.  Their  opinion  as  to  the 
effect  of  baptism,  or  as  a  substitute,  I  despise  as  much  as  I  do  the 
opinions  of  Dr.  Pusey. 

The  following  extract  he  quotes  from  the  Rev.  William  T.  Hamilton : 
"  For  any  one  to  assume  that  one  mode  only  was  employed,  and  then 
demand  that  all  should  comply  with  that  mode,  while  they  can  produce 
neither  express  command  nor  an  undeniable  example  of  baptism  by  im- 
mersion in  the  Bible,  is  rather  a  bold  stand  to  take,  especially  for  those 
who  insist  that  in  a  positive  ordinance,  the  law  of  the  ordinance  must  be 
our  guide." 

Who  is  it,  Mr.  Wm.  T.  Hamilton,  that  assumes  this  ?  Did  any  Bap- 
tist ever  ground  the  meaning  of  the  word  on  assumption?  The  Rev. 
Wm.  T.  Hamilton  may  dispute  their  proofs,  and  has  a  right  to  express 
his  opinion  of  the  sufficiency  of  their  proofs ;  but  he  should  know  that 
to  allege  insufficient  proof  is  not  to  assume  the  point  at  issue.  This 
writer  appears  to  have  a  loose  random  way  of  speaking ;  and  perhaps  he 
has  not  asked  himself  what  he  means  by  the  charge  of  assumption.  If 
he  really  understood  what  he  was  saying,  can  there  be  a  greater  mis- 
representation of  Baptists  than  to  charge  them  with  assuming  that  there  is 
but  one  mode  of  this  ordinance;  and  on  the  ground  of  this  mere  assump- 
tion, calling  on  all  Christians  to  comply  with  it  ?    Do  they  not  pretend 


REPLY    TO    MR.    HALL.  417 

express  command  and  example  ?  If  the  command  is  not  proved,  and 
the  example  not  satisfactory,  let  this  be  shown ;  but  let  them  not  be 
represented  as  grounding  on  assumption,  and  forcing  their  assumption 
on  their  neighbours. 

Section  XI. — Mr.  Hall  asserts  that  Justin  "  uses  such  language  as 
renders  it  certain  that  he  by  no  means  considered  immersion  essential, 
and  such  as  renders  it  doubtful  whether  he  meant  immersion  at  all." 
Justin  uses  the  word  in  the  sense  of  immersion,  whenever  he  does  use 
it — never  in  any  other  sense.  Mr.  H.  tells  us  that  in  writing  to  the 
Emperor,  Justin  "  invariably  describes  the  baptism,  and  does  not  use 
the  word  baptism  at  all."  Well,  if  this  were  so,  how  can  his  use  of  the 
word  prove  that  he  did  not  consider  immersion  essential?  If  in  a 
certain  case  he  did  not  use  the  word  at  all,  how  can  the  word  in  that 
case  prove  that  he  used  it  in  a  certain  meaning?  Very  true,  in  writing 
to  the  Emperor,  Justin  describes  the  ordinance,  without  using  the  word : 
but  that  description,  so  far  from  being  inconsistent  with  immersion,  adds 
to  the  proof  of  immersion :  it  proves  it  by  other  words.  Is  not  this 
necessarily  implied  in  the  fact  that  the  candidates  for  baptism  were  led 
to  a  place  where  there  was  water?  Is  it  not  necessarily  implied  in  the 
assertion  that  they  were  there  born  again  in  that  ordinance  ?  Is  not  this 
a  reference  to  their  issuing  out  of  the  water  of  baptism  ? 

Another  of  Mr.  H.'s  proofs  is,  that  Justin  applies  louo  and  loutron  to 
the  ordinance.  I  maintain  that  this  is  proof  of  immersion.  These 
words  apply  to  the  bathing  of  the  whole  person.  When  Mr.  H.  speaks 
of  louo  as  signifying  washing  in  general,  he  speaks  not  in  knowledge. 
Baptism  is  represented  by  Justin  as  a  bathing  of  the  body.  Yet  I  tell 
Mr.  Hall,  that  though  louo  is  applied  to  the  same  ordinance  as  baptizo, 
the  words  are  by  no  means  synonymous.  I  have  given  a  thousand  proofs 
of  this. 

The  author's  own  quotation  from  Cyprian,  might  show  him  that  even 
that  Father,  who  makes  perfusion  a  valid  substitute  for  baptism  in  case 
of  necessity,  does  not  consider  perfusion  to  be  baptism.  "  Perfusion," 
says  he,  "  is  of  like  value  with  the  salutary  bath."  Does  not  this  import 
that  perfusion  is  not  the  same  thing  as  the  salutary  bath?  Perfusion, 
then,  is  not  baptism,  in  the  estimation  of  this  Father,  although  he  made 
it  serve  the  same  purpose. 

Mr.  H.  quotes  the  case  of  the  Jew,  who,  falling  sick  while  travelling 
with  Christians,  was  sprinkled  with  sand,  for  want  of  water.  Yes  ;  and 
if  this  is  proof  that  sprinkling  will  serve  for  immersion,  it  equally  proves 
that  sand  will  serve  for  water.  This  trash  will  find  no  purchasers  except 
the  Puseyites. 

Section  XII. — Mr.  H.  inquires,  "  On  the  supposition  that  the  early 
disciples  always  baptized  by  immersion,  is  there  evidence  that  they  con- 
sidered that  mode  essential  ?" 

To  this  I  reply :  1.  This  supposition  is  not  fully  and  fairly  stated. 
It  ought  to  be  included  in  the  supposition  that  the  word  in  the  command 

53 


418  REPLY   TO    MR.    HALL. 

signifies  to  immerse.     If  we  are  right  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word,  the 
thing  commanded  is  in  all  ages  the  same. 

2.  Even  on  the  defective  supposition  stated,  the  answer  must  be  in 
the  affirmative.  If  they  who  practised  according  to  the  command  of  the 
apostles,  always  observed  the  ordinance  in  one  mode,  while  several 
other  modes  were  practicable  and  were  much  more  easily  observed,  it  is 
evident  that  the  mode  cannot  be  indilferent.  Besides,  the  apostle  Paul 
fully  teaches  this :  "  Now  I  praise  you,  brethren,  that  ye  remember  me 
in  all  things,  and  keep  the  ordinances  as  I  delivered  them  unto  you." 
Even  the  covering  and  uncovering  of  the  head  in  public  worship,  and 
the  wearing  of  short  or  long  hair,  are  things  thought  worthy  of  Divine 
regulation.  Should  any  be  contentious  with  respect  to  the  forbidden 
practices,  it  was  deemed  a  sufficient  answer,  that  "  neither  the  apostles 
nor  the  churches  had  any  such  custom."  This  establishes  the  customs 
of  the  apostolical  churches  as  firmly  as  if  all  those  customs  were  in  all 
the  formality  of  an  act  of  parliament. 

3.  Mr.  H.'s  supposed  case  in  answer  to  his  question  is  not  parallel  to 
the  case  put  by  himself.  The  case  put  is  example ;  the  case  in  illus- 
tration is  command.  "  Suppose,"  says  he,  "  the  command  had  been, 
'Let  every  believer  go  down  to  Jericho.'  Suppose  that  the  Saviour  and 
his  early  disciples  all  went  by  one  particular  way,  and  always  rode  on 
ass  colts,  must  we  always  go  in  that  road?"  &c. 

To  this  I  reply :  The  way  by  which  they  are  to  go  to  Jericho  not 
being  included  in  the  command,  can  never  by  any  example  be  brought 
into  it.  To  go  to  Jericho  in  any  way  to  the  end  of  the  world,  is  a  per- 
fect fulfilment  of  the  command.  If  they  always  go  to  Jericho  by  one 
way,  while  that  way  is  fifty  times  as  long  as  others,  it  cannot  be  without 
design.  But  this  has  no  bearing  on  the  question  at  issue.  The  com- 
mand is  to  immerse,  and  immersion  must  ever  continue  to  be  obedience 
to  the  command.  As  they  always  actually  immersed,  it  shows  that  they 
understood  the  command  as  an  immersion.  To  make  the  supposed 
case  in  point,  the  command  should  be  to  go  to  Jericho,  while  it  is 
obeyed  by  going  to  Damascus.  This  is  the  principle  on  which  our 
opponents  act.  They  justify  a  change  of  the  mode  on  the  principle  of 
expediency. 

Section  XIII. — "  The  thing  is  commanded,"  says  Mr.  H.,  "  the  mode 
is  not  commanded."  I  have  proved  a  thousand  times  that  mode  is  the 
very  thing  directly  commanded.  But  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  com- 
mand, according  to  Mr.  H.?  I  can  understand  those  who  say  that  the 
word  in  this  command  signifies  neither  to  pour,  nor  to  sprinkle,  nor  to 
immerse,  but  that  it  signifies  to  purify,  and  may  be  fulfilled  in  any 
mode.  This  is  bolder  extravagance  than  that  of  Mr.  H.,  but  it  is 
consistent  extravagance :  I  cannot  find  that  Mr.  H.  has  any  definite 
idea  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  command.  It  is  with  him 
sometimes  one  thing  and  sometimes  another,  as  it  suits  the  occasion. 
Here  it  is  pouring — there  it  is  sprinkling ;  while  on  some  occasions  he 
appears  to  favour  the  supposition   that  it  signifies  to  purify.     These 


REPLY   TO    MR.    HALL.  419 

views  are  perfectly  inconsistent.  If  it  is  pour,  it  cannot  be  sprinkle  :  if 
it  is  either,  it  cannot  be  purify :  if  it  is  purify,  it  cannot  be  mode  at  all. 

Mr.  H.  illustrates,  by  six  examples  in  a  note,  with  respect  to  the 
Lord's  supper,  none  of  which  have  any  application  to  the  subject.  It 
was  at  flight.  This  fact  has  no  feature  of  an  example.  Every  fact  is 
not  an  example.  When  a  thing  could  not  be  otherwise,  it  cannot  be  an 
example.  But  it  does  not  even  suit  the  case  put  by  him.  Does  not 
the  case  put  suppose  universal  practice  ?  Is  not  this  a  solitary  fact, 
evidently  without  an  intention  of  being  an  example?  I  need  not  waste 
time  by  running  over  the  six  examples  :  they  are  all  of  the  same 
stamp. 

"  So  here,"  says  Mr.  H.,  "  we  are  to  be  baptized,  and  simply  bap- 
tized." Certainly  :  but  what  is  this  to  the  purpose  of  the  argument 
alleging  universal  practice  as  an  insufficient  proof?  All  we  want  is,  that 
our  opponents  should  comply  with  the  command.  "  But  I  have  shown," 
says  he,  "  that  the  words  baptized  and  baptism  were  in  common  use 
among  the  Jews  of  that  time  to  denote  ritual  purification  by  sprinkling 
or  pouring."  You  have  shown  no  such  thing,  Mr.  H. :  but  had  you 
shown  it,  what  has  this  to  do  with  universal  practice  ?  This  extract 
shows  that  the  author  has  no  definite  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  word. 
Had  he  understood  and  adopted  the  theory  that  makes  the  word  signify 
to  purify,  he  would  not  have  spoken  of  proof  with  respect  to  sprinkle 
or  pour.  All  modes  on  that  supposition  are  indifferent.  When  he  speaks 
as  if  the  word  designates  both  purification  and  different  modes,  he  speaks 
most  unphilosophically. 

On  the  subject  of  the  variety  of  baptism,  under  different  modes,  Mr. 
H.  tells  us,  with  respect  to  the  difference  between  John's  baptism  and 
that  of  our  Lord,  "  Here  were  two  baptisms,  while  doubtless  there  was 
but  one  mode."  Thank  you,  Mr.  Hall,  I  never  could  get  an  antagonist  to 
confess  this  honestly  on  Heb.  ix.  10.  There  may  then  be  divers  baptisms  ; 
while  doubtless  there  is  in  them  all  but  one  mode.  But  though  there 
may  be  two  or  more  baptisms  in  one  mode,  this  does  not  prove  that 
there  may  be  two  or  more  modes  in  one  baptism. 

In  another  publication,  Mr.  H.  asserts,  with  respect  to  my  views  of 
Mark  vii.  4,  that  I  see  and  feel  the  difficulties.  There  is  no  truth  in  the 
assertion ;  I  neither  feel  a  difficulty  in  the  passage,  nor  see  one.  I 
believe  God  on  his  own  testimony,  without  the  slightest  wish  for  other 
proof  to  confirm  his  statement.  His  testimony  I  cannot  but  understand 
in  the  sense  of  the  language  which  he  employs.  Instead  of  feeling  diffi- 
culty, I  am  more  inclined  to  feel  contempt  for  the  understanding  that 
hesitates  in  believing  the  fact  without  the  co-operation  of  uninspired 
history.  This  lays  down,  as  a  first  principle,  that  nothing  in  Scripture 
is  to  be  received,  but  what  is  proved  by  the  history  of  the  times.  This 
is  a  false  axiom  :  this  is  not  essential  even  to  uninspired  history.  If  a 
modern  traveller  relates  that  a  certain  nation  immerses  before  meat  after 
market,  we  shall  not  think  of  giving  a  meaning  to  the  word  immerses, 
to  suit  our  view  of  probability. 

As  some  who  make  the  word  signify  immersion,  understand  this 
passage  of  the  immersing  of  the  hands,  Mr.  H.  thinks  he  makes  us 


420  REPLY   TO    MR.    HALL. 

destroy  each  other.  Now  this  is  a  species  of  argument  which  has  its 
use,  and  if  well  used  it  is  very  powerful.  Baptists  have  often  used  it 
with  great  success  against  their  opponents.  But  the  ground  of  it  is  not 
well  understood,  and  Mr.  H.  entirely  mistakes  it.  I  shall  not,  however, 
at  present  enter  into  the  subject,  farther  than  the  refutation  of  the 
writer  in  the  present  instance  demands.  Let  us  see,  then,  with  what 
skill  Mr.  H.  wields  this  sharp  and  powerful  weapon.  It  is  the  sword  of 
Goliath,  but  with  Mr.  H.  it  is  in  the  hands  of  an  infant :  he  is  not  able 
to  raise  it  above  his  head.  The  fact  on  which  he  grounds  is,  that  while 
I  contend  for  a  total  immersion  before  dinner ;  others,  on  the  same  side, 
are  satisfied  with  immersing  their  hands.  How  do  we  destroy  each 
other  1  With  respect  to  the  subject  at  issue  we  never  clash.  The  same 
common  truth  as  to  the  mode  of  baptism  equally  stands,  whichever  of 
us  is  correct  as  to  the  baptism  of  the  Jews.  We  differ  only  about  the 
extent  of  a  certain  Jewish  baptism.  As  to  the  mode,  there  is  no  differ- 
ence between  us ;  and  mode  is  the  point  at  issue,  and  is  the  only  thing 
signified  by  the  word  itself.  On  the  meaning  of  the  word  there  is  no 
difference  between  me  and  Dr.  George  Campbell,  whom,  as  to  the  extent 
of  the  baptism,  I  refute.  Whether,  according  to  him,  the  hands  only 
were  immersed,  or,  according  to  me,  the  whole  body,  the  word  itself 
does  not  testify ;  this  must  be  decided  by  connexion. 

In  the  same  way  he  makes  us  strangle  one  another  on  Rom.  vi.  1. 
Some  Baptists,  it  seems,  do  not  perceive  the  force  of  the  argument  which 
others  ground  on  this  passage.  Well,  is  this  a  difference  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word  ?  At  the  very  worst,  it  is  only  the  loss  of  a  single 
argument — an  argument,  however,  which  I  would  hold,  were  an  angel 
to  reject  it.  Must  a  cause  fall,  if  all  its  supporters  do  not  support  it 
with  all  the  same  arguments  1 

In  like  manner  many  Baptists  contend  strongly  that  Acts  xix.  does 
not  prove  that  they  who  are  spoken  of  as  baptized  into  John's  baptism, 
were  on  that  occasion  baptized  into  Christ,  while  I  admit  this  without 
hesitation ; — what  then  ?  Has  this  anything  to  do  with  the  mode  of 
baptism?  With  respect  to  the  points  at  issue,  namely,  the  mode  and 
subjects  of  baptism,  there  is  no  difference  between  Baptists ;  and  these 
are  the  only  essential  points  of  unity  on  this  question.  But  we  can  bring 
the  charge  home  to  our  opponents  with  tremendous  effect.  Their  differ- 
ences are  such  that  they  really  destroy  each  other.  I  have  no  time  at 
present  to  pursue  the  subject,  but  it  has  been  done  by  many.  The 
different  grounds  on  which  a  deviation  from  immersion  is  defended, 
effectually  destroy  each  other.  If  it  is  pour,  it  cannot  be  sprinkle;  if  it 
is  purify,  it  can  be  neither.  The  different  grounds  of  infant  baptism  in 
like  manner  destroy  each  other.  If  the  baptism  of  the  one  is  truth,  the 
other  is  falsehood. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

REMARKS  ON  MR.  MUNRO's  WORK,  ENTITLED  "  MODERN  IMMERSION,  &C. 

Section  I. — In  reference  to  my  denial  that  in  Heb.  ix.  10,  the  divers 
baptisms  include  sprinklings,  Mr.  Munro  exclaims,  "Which  are  we  to 
adopt, — Mr.  Carson's  bold  denial,  or  the  apostle's  explicit  affirmation?" 
The  apostle's  explicit  affirmation !  Does  the  apostle  explicitly  affirm 
what  I  deny  ?  Does  he,  in  the  13th  verse,  affirm  that  sprinklings  are 
included  in  the  baptisms  of  the  10th  verse?  The  man  who  takes  this 
for  proof,  need  never  want  proof  for  anything  which  he  chooses  to 
assert. 

Mr.  M.  denies  as  explicitly  as  I  do  that  the  word  in  question  signifies 
washing,  or  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  or  purifying ;  but  in  all  his  work  I 
cannot  find  that  he  gives  it  any  meaning  at  all.  He  tells  us,  that  it  is 
applied  to  designate  a  sprinkling  ordinance ;  but  its  own  meaning  he 
leaves  in  mystery.  Surely,  if  it  was  applied  to  designate  an  ordinance, 
it  must  have  had  a  meaning  in  the  language  which  fitted  it  for  such  a 
designation.  Of  all  that  I  have  found  advanced  with  respect  to  this 
word,  this  is  the  most  rational. 

Section  II. — Mr.  M.'s  exploits  at  the  Red  Sea  surpass  every  thing 
attempted  by  his  predecessors.  It  seems,  the  Red  Sea  had  no  concern 
with  the  baptism  spoken  of  I  Cor.  x.  2.  The  baptism  took  place  at 
Mount  Sinai,  after  the  giving  of  the  law.  This  extravagance  is  so  ex- 
travagant that  I  am  convinced  it  needs  no  refutation  with  respect  to 
pa?do-baptists  themselves.  That  the  people  of  Israel  were  baptized  in 
the  sea,  is  the  explicit  assertion  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Could  sobriety  of 
judgment  assert  that  what  is  described  Exod.  xxiv.  3-8  is  the  baptism  of 
1  Cor.  x.  2?  What  must  be  the  strength  of  evidence  on  our  side,  when 
men  are  driven  to  suppositions  so  extravagant,  to  explanations  so  forced, 
in  order  to  evade  it !  Ought  not  this  to  rouse  psedo-baptists  to  inquiry? 
Can  it  be  truth  that  requires  such  a  defence  ? 

The  baptism  1  Cor.  x.  2,  Mr.  M.  alleges,  cannot  have  taken  place  on 
passing  the  sea,  because  no  part  of  the  covenant  had  been  published  at 
that  time.     What  had  the  covenant  to  do  with  the  baptism  ? 

In  reference  to  Exod.  xxiv.  3 — 8,  Mr.  Munro  says,  that  "  Moses 
sprinkled,  baptized,  or  purified  the  altar."     Where  it  is  said  that  he 

421 


422  REMARKS    ON   MR.    MONRO'S    WORK. 

baptized  the  altar?  and  why  does  he  assume  that  sprinkling  is  bap- 
tizing ?     Is  there  any  reasoning  in  this  ? 

He  tells  us  also,  that  "  with  that  half  of  the  blood  which  Moses  had 
put  in  basins  for  the  purpose,  he  baptized  the  great  congregation." 
Where  is  this  called  a  baptism  ?  Is  not  this  an  assumption  of  the  point 
in  debate  ?  Not  one  of  the  sprinklings  which  this  writer  calls  baptisms 
is  ever  so  designated  in  Scripture.  A  thousand  folio  volumes  of  such 
reasoning  could  not  produce  the  smallest  degree  of  evidence  to  a 
rational  mind. 

We  are  told  by  this  writer,  that  "  the  baptisms  and  the  washings 
included  in  the  law  were  perfectly  distinct  ordinances."  What  he  calls 
baptisms  are,  no  doubt,  perfectly  distinct  from  the  washings.  But  what 
he  calls  baptisms  are  never  so  called  in  Scripture.  All  he  advances, 
then,  on  this  head,  is  without  reference  to  the  point,  till  he  proves  that 
the  sprinklings  are  called  baptisms. 

In  replying  to  the  argument,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  be  poured 
out,  and  therefore  to  represent  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit,  baptism 
must  be  pouring,  I  used  very  strong  language.  I  still  adhere  to  my 
argument  in  the  strongest  language  in  which  it  can  be  expressed.  No 
man  of  common  sense  will  ever  call  it  in  question  :  it  is  self-evident. 
On  this  point,  I  have  satisfied  all  rational  paedo-baptists.  It  requires 
nothing  but  to  point  out  the  fallacy.     My  argument  is,  that,  as  there 

CAN  BE  NO  MODE  IN  THE  OPERATIONS  OF  THE  SPIRIT,  SO  NO  MODE  IN 
ANY  ORDINANCE  CAN  BE  AN  EMBLEM  OF  MODE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  ;  AND  THAT 
WHEN  MODE  IS  ASCRIBED  TO  THE  OPERATIONS  OF  THE  SPIRIT,  IT  IS  IN 
ACCOMMODATION   TO    THE     EMBLEM NOT    A    REPRESENTATION     OF   THE 

thing  signified.  Accordingly,  different  modes,  and  all  the  modes  of 
the  emblem,  are  ascribed  to  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  which  implies  that 
none  of  them  can  be  intended  to  represent  mode  in  the  thing  expressed. 
In  like  manner  I  disposed  of  sprinkling  as  an  emblem  of  the  sprinkling 
of  the  blood  of  Christ.  It  cannot  be  an  emblem  of  this,  because  the 
blood  of  Christ  is  not  literally  sprinkled  on  the  believer ;  it  is  said  to  be 
sprinkled  in  reference  to  its  emblem,  the  blood  of  the  sacrifices.  With 
all  sober  men  this  point  must  be  settled  for  ever.  All  the  language  of 
Scripture  referred  to  by  this  writer,  ascribing  mode  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
is  suited  merely  to  the  emblem. 

Mr.  M.  disclaims  the  imputation  of  holding  that  the  spirit  is  literally 
poured  out.  This  is  all  I  want  to  prove  that  pouring  in  baptism  can- 
not be  an  emblem  of  mode  in  the  operations  of  the  Spirit.  If  there  is 
no  mode  in  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  there  can  be  no  emblem  of  mode. 
No  axiom  is  clearer  than  this.  To  hold  that  mode  in  baptism  is  em- 
blematical as  to  the  operations  of  the  Spirit,  necessarily  makes  the  God- 
head material.  I  care  not  whether  my  opponents  avow  or  disclaim  the 
imputation ;  it  is  necessarily  contained  in  their  doctrine.  But  what 
does  the  author  mean  when  he  says,  that  "  sprinkling  or  pouring  is  the 
only  mode  which  can  properly  represent  the  thing  signified  ?"  Does  not 
this  avow  the  very  thing  he  disclaims?  Does  not  this  imply  that  there 
is  mode  in  the  thing  signified  which  can  be  represented  by  a  certain 
mode  in  the  emblem,  and  properly  by  that  mode  only?     If  there  is  no 


REMARKS    ON    MR.    MUNRO's    WORK.  423 

mode  in  the  thing  signified,  how  can  pouring  and  sprinkling,  as  modes, 
be  necessary  to  represent  it? 

He  tells  us,  that  "  in  Scripture  language  sprinkling  and  pouring  are 
terms  of  the  same  import."  Neither  in  Scripture  nor  any  where  else 
are  the  terms  of  the  same  import :  they  express  modes  essentially  dif- 
ferent— as  different  as  either  of  them  is  from  immersion  But  it  is  idle 
to  reason  with  persons  who  can  make  such  assertions. 

Mr.  M.alleges,  that  any  "  definition  of  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  sup- 
poses the  subject  to  be  put  into  the  Spirit ;  whereas  the  Spirit  is 
invariably  represented  as  poured  out,  so  as  to  be  put  into  them."  I  give 
no  definition  of  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit ;  I  merely  explain  the  figura- 
tive expression.  The  fact  that  the  Spirit,  in  allusion  to  its  emblem,  is 
spoken  of  under  other  modes,  does  not  prevent  the  application  of  the 
mode  of  immersion.  Pouring,  and  sprinkling,  and  distilling,  and  im- 
mersing, &c,  may  all  be  applicable,  because  they  are  all  suited  to 
the  emblem,  and  mode  in  the  thing  signified  is  not  designed  to  be 
represented. 

He  says,  also,  that  I  confound  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  with  the 
effects  of  it.  To  this  I  reply  in  like  manner,  that  I  do  not  define  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit,  but  explain  the  expression  as  a  figure. 

Mr.  M.  is  persuaded  that  Rom.  vi.  3,  refers  to  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  and  not  to  water  baptism.  Baptism  into  Christ,  he  says,  cannot 
be  done  with  hands.  As  well  might  he  say  that  Ananias  did  not  speak 
of  water  baptism  in  addressing  Paul,  because  he  calls  on  Paul  to  wash 
away  his  sins.  As  well  might  he  say  that  Peter  does  not  refer  to  water 
baptism,  because  he  says  that  it  saves  us.  This  conceit  is  perfectly 
groundless.  When  the  disciples  at  Ephesus  declared  that  they  had  not 
heard  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  Paul  asked  them,  "  Into  what  then  were  ye 
baptized?"     This  implies  that  water  baptism  is  baptism  into  the  Spirit. 

He  grounds  another  argument  on  the  parallel  passage,  Col.  ii.  12. 
As  their  circumcision  was  not  literal,  he  thinks  their  baptism  could  not 
be  literal.  But  there  is  no  force  in  this  argument :  they  might  be  said 
to  be  spiritually  circumcised,  while  they  are  said  also  to  be  literally 
baptized.  The  same  persons  might  be  said  to  be  both  literally  and 
spiritually  circumcised.  Why,  then,  may  they  not  be  said  to  be  spirit- 
ually circumcised,  and  literally  baptized?  The  baptism  here  must 
be  literal,  because  in  no  other  is  there  a  burial.  They  are  not  only  said 
to  have  been  baptized,  but  to  have  been  buried  in  baptism.  This  must 
for  ever  settle  the  point,  both  that  literal  baptism  is  meant,  and  that 
baptism  is  immersion.  Even  were  the  phrase  buried  in  baptism, 
supposed  to  be  figurative,  it  equally  implies  that  literal  baptism  is  a 
burial. 

That  it  is  a  literal  baptism  is  evident  also,  from  its  having  a  likeness 
to  Christ's  resurrection,  and  implying,  with  respect  to  us,  a  new  life. 
It  is  only  in  the  ordinance  that  such  likeness  can  exist.  That  it  is  a 
literal  baptism  is  also  clear,  from  its  being  called  a  planting  in  the  like- 
ness of  Christ's  death.  Indeed,  whether  it  is  planting  or  anything  else, 
still  there  is  likeness,  and  likeness  implies  something  external. 

Mr.  M.  tells  us  that  the  word  likeness  is  not  applied  to  baptism,  but  to 


424  REMARKS    ON    MR.    MUNRo's    WORK. 

planting.  But  it  is  baptism  that  is  here  called  a  planting.  Between 
planting,  then,  and  baptism  there  must  be  a  likeness.  This  baptism, 
or  figurative  planting,  has  a  likeness  to  Christ's  death,  by  its  likeness  to 
burial.  Baptism  is  both  a  planting  and  a  burial.  But  whatever  the 
word  likeness  may  be  supposed  to  respect,  still  it  equally  implies  that  the 
baptism  is  literal. 

Mr.  M.  tells  us  that  the  likeness  is  not  to  the  burial,  but  to  the  death 
of  Christ.  But  the  likeness  to  Christ's  burial  is  a  likeness  to  his  death ; 
it  is  a  likeness  to  him  in  the  state  of  death.  Besides,  the  phrase  buried 
7cith  Mm  in  baptism,  shows  that  the  likeness  to  death  respects  burial. 
But  whatever  the  likeness  respects,  still  it  equally  implies  literal  baptism. 
When  he  says  the  likeness  is  to  the  death  of  Christ,  what  is  the  thing 
that  has  the  likeness  to  Christ's  death  ?  Is  it  not  baptism  ?  How  can 
it  have  this  likeness  unless  it  is  literal  baptism  ?  How  can  it  have  this 
likeness,  but  as  death  is  implied  in  burial  ? 

Like  others,  Mr.  M.  insists  on  the  want  of  resemblance  between  bap- 
tism and  burial.  The  resemblance  is  perfectly  sufficient  as  an  emblem ; 
and  it  was  not  intended  to  be  a  dramatic  representation.  But  what  does 
he  mean  when  he  tells  us  that  Joseph  did  not  dig  a  pit  in  the  rock,  nor 
cover  the  dead  body  of  Christ?  If  this  has  any  bearing,  it  must  be  to 
prove  that  Christ  was  not  buried,  and  that  there  is  no  burial  in  baptism. 
For  the  purpose  of  this  figure,  it  is  quite  enough  that  baptism  is  a  burial 
in  any  way.  Does  not  the  experience  of  every  day  show  us  that  being 
covered  with  water,  in  any  way,  may  be  called  a  burial  ?  In  an  account 
of  a  shipwreck  it  is  said,  "  Boils  appeared  on  all  the  seamen's  legs  at 
once,  and  they  were  benumbed  by  being  continually  buried  in  water." 
Here  is  a  burial  in  water,  when  the  water  rose  on  the  baptized  from  a 
leak.     The  seamen  did  not  dig  a  pit  in  a  rock,  for  this  burial. 

With  respect  to  Enon,  Mr.  M.  alleges  that  much  water  was  as  neces- 
sary for  dipping  as  for  sprinkling.  This  observation  is  not  very  profound. 
Much  water  is  not  necessary  for  the  immersion  of  a  few  persons ;  but 
for  the  immersion  of  multitudes  very  important.  The  water  of  a  foun- 
tain would  soon  become  unfit  for  baptism,  if  used  for  the  multitudes 
baptized  by  John.  Whether  the  phrase  denotes  one  collection  or  many 
collections  of  water,  is  quite  immaterial. 

He  asks:  "  If  baptism  must  be  administered  by  immersion,  why  did 
not  Christ  or  the  apostles  ordain  the  construction  of  baptismal  cisterns?" 
What  an  argument!  We  might  as  well  ask,  if  sprinkling  had  been 
appointed,  why  was  not  the  construction  of  basins  ordained  by  the 
apostles  ? ,  Why  ordain  the  construction  of  baptisteries,  when  all  means 
of  immersion  are  equal  ?  What  must  be  the  degree  of  prejudice  and 
blindness  in  the  mind,  that  sees  an  argument  in  this ! 

He  tells  us,  that  the  much  water  was  necessary  for  other  purposes  to 
the  multitudes  who  attended  John.  To  this  I  reply :  1.  The  cause 
assigned  is  not  known  to  exist.  It  is  not  in  evidence,  that  the  multitudes 
remained  with  John  any  length  of  time.  2.  Had  the  cause  existed,  it  is 
insufficient  to  produce  the  effect.  The  multitudes  might  have  remained 
with  John  days  and  nights,  though  there  had  not  been  a  single  fountain. 
Might  they  not  have  brought  their  water  as  well  as  their  victuals? 


REMARKS   ON   MR.    MUNRO's   WORK.  425 

3.  The  cause  alleged  by  us  is  expressly  mentioned  in  the  passage :  John 
was  baptizing  in  that  place,  because  there  was  there  much  water.  The 
much  water,  then,  was  for  the  baptism.  4.  It  was  also  for  the  purpose 
of  being  baptized,  that  they  came  to  this  place  of  water. 

With  respect  to  the  eunuch,  he  says,  "Among  the  myriads  of  baptisms 
of  which  we  read  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  with  the  single  exception 
of  that  of  the  eunuch,  there  is  not  a  hint  about  going  to  or  from  any  pool 
or  river."  Does  any  rational  man  expect  that  every  account  of  baptism 
will  record  every  circumstance  in  the  transaction?  One  example  is 
perfectly  sufficient.  He  demands  an  example  of  going  from  any  chapel 
or  house  to  the  river,  or  of  going  to  any  font  of  water  in  a  house.  Such 
an  example  is  not  necessary.  If  they  went  to  the  water,  in  any  case  in 
which  a  few  drops  of  water  could  be  brought  to  them,  sprinkling  could 
not  have  been  the  mode.  But  they  not  only  went  to  the  water,  but  both 
of  them  went  into  the  water,  for  it  is  on  record  that  they  came  out  of 
the  water.  I  have,  again  and  again,  proved  that  the  preposition  signi- 
fies out  of,  not  from. 

I  had  said,  that  there  is  not  a  spot  in  which  a  human  being  can  be 
found,  in  which  a  few  drops  of  water  cannot  be  found.  Mr.  M.  alleges  the 
fact  of  great  tracts  of  country  being  totally  destitute  of  water.  Is  this  an 
answer  to  me?  Does  any  human  being  reside  in  a  country,  where  a  few 
drops  of  water  cannot  be  found  ?  If  the  eunuch  travelled  through  such 
a  country,  it  is  self-evident  that  he  had  a  supply  of  water  with  him. 

I  speak  of  the  retinue  of  the  eunuch.  That  such  a  man  as  the  eunuch 
took  a  retinue,  needs  not  to  be  proved  by  record ;  it  is  self-evident.  But 
for  my  purpose,  there  is  no  need  of  a  retinue.  One  servant  will  suffice ; 
and  it  is  expressly  on  evidence  that  he  had  attendants :  he  commanded 
to  stop  the  chariot.  Yet  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch  went  not  only 
to  the  water,  but  both  of  them  into  the  water,  which  lunacy  itself  would 
not  allege  as  necessary  for  sprinkling. 

Mr.  M.  says  that  "  they  went  down  to  the  water,  because  they  needed 
water,  and  because  the  water  would  not  come  up  to  them."  There  is 
neither  wit  nor  strength  in  this  remark.  Do  all  men  go  to  the  water  who 
need  water.  The  water  would  have  come  up  to  them,  had  a  few  drops 
been  sufficient.  The  eunuch  could  have  commanded  the  water  to  come 
up,  as  well  as  the  chariot  to  stand  still. 

He  says,  that  "  I  would  persuade  my  readers  that  my  opponents  main- 
tain that  the  Greek  word  signifies  to  pour,  but  that  I  know  they  do  no 
such  thing."  I  do  not  represent  all  my  opponents  as  maintaining  that  the 
word  signifies  to  pour,  for  I  have  shown  that  some  of  them  think  that  it 
signifies  to  sprinkle ;  and  that  there  is  an  endless  diversity  of  opinion 
among  them,  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word.  But  is  there  any  one  who 
does  not  know  that  many  of  them  make  the  word  signify  to  pour?  But 
what  does  he  make  the  word  signify  ?  This  he  does  not  tell  us.  Of  all 
the  absurdities  that  I  have  met  in  criticism,  this  is  the  most  absurd — 
a  treatise  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  a  word  in  an  ordinance ;  yet  in  all 
the  treatise  there  is  no  meaning  assigned  to  the  word  ! 

He  says,  that  he  can  assign  a  probable  reason  for  the  selection  of  this 
word,  as  the  designation  of  the  ordinance.     The  reason  is,  "Dipping  is 

54 


426  REMARKS    ON   MR.    MUNRO's    WORK. 

included  in  any  scriptural  baptism."  Does  not  this  take  for  granted  that 
the  word  signifies  to  dip  1  But  if  the  word  signifies  to  dip,  the  person 
baptized  must  be  dipped.  The  baptism  is  not  the  dipping  of  the  head 
of  the  baptized,  or  water  made  to  sprinkle  the  baptized;  but  the  dipping 
of  the  person  who  receives  the  ordinance.  The  priest,  indeed,  dipped 
his  finger  in  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice,  in  order  to  sprinkle  it ;  but  this 
was  not  called  the  dipping  of  the  altar. 

Mr.  M.  asks  where  I  got  the  information,  that  the  eunuch  did  not  ask 
for  baptism  till  he  saw  the  water  in  which  it  might  be  performed  ?  But 
is  it  not  obvious  to  the  smallest  degree  of  discernment  that  I  speak  from 
the  testimony  of  the  documents,  and  not  as  regards  abstract  possibility  ? 
Besides,  there  is  positive  evidence  from  the  passage,  that  the  eunuch 
considered  baptism  impossible,  till  the  appearance  of  this  water.  It 
is  equally  evident  that  this  is  the  first  time  he  asked  for  baptism ;  for 
had  he  asked  before,  he  would  have  got  an  answer  that  would  have  pre- 
vented this  question.  In  every  point  of  view,  then,  the  author's  objection 
manifests  as  great  a  degree  of  captiousness,  as  want  of  penetration. 


CHAPTER  X. 

REMARKS    ON    MR.    THORN'S    "MODERN    IMMERSION    NOT    CHRISTIAN 

BAPTISM." 

The  work  of  Mr.  Thorn  discovers  very  great  industry,  and  an  exten- 
sive acquaintance  with  books  on  both  sides  of  the  question,  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word  in  dispute.  He  manifests  that,  if  the  cause  which 
he  has  espoused  is  not  successful  in  proof,  it  has  not  failed  for  want  of 
zeal  and  study.  He  has  raked  together  all  that  lexicons,  concordances, 
and  the  other  usual  resources  of  second-hand  critics,  could  afford ;  and 
he  has  enriched  the  treatise  by  long  contributions  of  original  trifling. 
There  is  no  science  in  his  criticism,  no  philosophy  in  the  principles  on 
which  he  assigns  meaning.  His  interpretation  is  extravagant  and  wild 
beyond  almost  any  of  his  fellow-labourers.  Yet  there  is  one  thing  in  him 
with  which  I  am  well  pleased ; — he  appears  perfectly  convinced  of  the 
truth  of  the  point  which  he  labours  to  prove.  He  does  not,  like  some, 
labour  to  produce  confession ;  as  if  the  object  were  gained  when  decision 
is  rendered  doubtful  or  impossible.  He  writes  like  a  man  in  earnest,  and 
I  cannot  but  respect  sincerity  even  in  its  errors.  As  a  defender  of 
sprinkling,  it  is  fortunate  for  Mr.  Thorn  that  he  was  not  acquainted  with 
the  philosophy  of  language,  and  the  laws  which  operate  in  varying  the 
meaning  of  words.  The  sounder  a  writer's  first  principles  are,  under 
the  greater  necessity  will  he  be  to  give  evidence  when  he  defends  error. 
Where  a  Porson  would  fail,  a  Thorn  would  triumph.  His  examples  are 
fully  met  in  my  work,  and  I  need  not  waste  time  in  running  over  the 
same  ground  in  reference  to  his  interpretations. 

As  a  specimen  of  his  criticism,  I  shall  produce  a  few  short  examples. 

As  an  objection  to  our  meaning  of  the  word  in  certain  passages,  he 
alleges  (p.  124)  that  it  is  "  partial  dipping."  Would  any  critic  speak 
thus?  Would  any  man  who  knows  anything  of  language,  expect  that 
the  word  itself  was  to  determine  whether  the  dipping  were  total  or 
partial? 

He  tells  us  in  the  same  page,  that  "  the  moistening  of  the  bread  and 
wetting  of  the  finger  are  the  ultimate  intentions  of  the  several  expres- 
sions, and  not  the  present  mode  of  doing  it."  When  I  say,  Dip  your 
pitcher  in  the  fountain,  is  not  filling  of  the  pitcher  the  intention  of  the 
dipping?  Is  such  an  objection  to  be  dignified  with  the  name  of 
criticism  ? 

He  tells  us  (p.  128)  that  "  it  cannot  be  asserted,  that  it  is  expressive 

427 


428  REMARKS    ON   MR.    THORN'S    WORK. 

of  one  person  dipping  another."  Would  any  writer,  would  any  man  of 
ordinary  acquaintance  with  language,  expect  that  any  word  should  ex- 
press this  ?  Whether  in  baptism  the  believer  is  to  dip  himself,  or  to  be 
dipped  by  another,  is  not  to  be  known  from  any  word  signifying  immer- 
sion, but  from  other  criticism. 

He  makes  the  same  complaint  with  respect  to  the  twofold  action  of 
sinking  and  raising.  Does  any  one  pretend  that  the  raising  is  expressed 
by  the  word?  , 

He  alleges,  (page  139,)  that  according  to  us,  the  verb  with  the  prepo- 
sition in  its  syntax  must  express  a  double  dipping.  Was  ever  ignorance 
so  consummate  under  the  guise  of  knowledge?  Will  not  the  objection 
apply  equally  to  the  English  phrase  dip  in  or  into  ?  Does  it  not  apply 
with  greater  plausibility  to  immerse  in  or  into  ?  There  is  in  accurately 
expressed  in  the  verb,  while  it  is  repeated  in  the  preposition.  Are  we 
obliged  to  meet  such  objection  as  criticism  ?  Are  writers  of  this  stamp 
worthy  of  our  rebuke? 


CHAPTER  XL 


BAPTISM    NOT    PURIFICATION  J    IN   REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

Section  I. — Mr.  Beecher,  President  of  the  College  of  Illinois,  Ame- 
rica, has  lately  written  on  the  import  of  the  word  baptismos,  undertaking 
to  prove  that  it  refers  not  to  mode  at  all,  but  signifies  purification  in 
general.  Consequently,  while  we  are  on  both  sides  of  the  question  wrong, 
we  are  still  right.  We  are  wrong  in  believing  that  mode  is  designated, 
but  we  are  on  both  sides  right,  because  any  mode  of  the  religious  appli- 
cation of  water  is  baptism.  This  is  the  happy  theory  by  which  harmony 
is  to  be  effected  on  this  much  and  long-controverted  subject. 

To  much  of  the  former  part  of  the  work  I  can  have  no  possible  objec- 
tion, because  it  is  a  mere  echo  of  my  own  philological  doctrines,  illus- 
trated with  different  examples.  In  a  work  controverting  the  conclusions 
which  I  have  drawn  in  my  treatise  on  baptism,  it  surely  was  very  unne- 
cessary to  prove  that  words  may  have  a  secondary  meaning,  wandering 
very  far  from  their  original  import.  Can  any  writer  be  pointed  out  who 
has  shown  this  more  fully  than  I  have  done  ?  I  do  not  question  this  prin- 
ciple :  I  have  laid  it  down  for  him  as  a  foundation.  All  I  require  is  proof 
of  the  existence  of  the  secondary  meaning,  and  proof  of  the  existence  of 
the  secondary  meaning  which  he  alleges.  Had  he  given  this,  I  would 
admit  such  secondary  meaning ;  but  would  still  show  that  the  word  in 
reference  to  the  rite  appointed  by  Christ,  has  its  name  from  the  primary 
meaning  of  this  word.  Mr.  B.  has  done  nothing  of  all  this.  He  has  not 
proved  that  the  word,  in  reference  to  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  signifies 
purification ;  he  has  not  proved  that  in  any  reference  it  signifies  purifi- 
cation ;  he  has  not  proved  that  it  has  any  secondary  signification  at  all. 
His  dissertation  is  no  more  to  critical  deduction  than  Waverley  or 
Kenil worth  is  to  history.  Indeed  the  relation  is  not  so  true :  it  wants 
that  verisimilitude  which  is  to  be  found  in  the  novels  of  the  illustrious 
Scott.  To  the  ignorant  there  is  an  appearance  of  philosophy  and  learn- 
ing ;  but  sound  criticism  will  have  little  difficulty  in  taking  the  founda- 
tion from  under  the  edifice  which  he  has  laboured  to  erect. 

The  first  argument  which  he  alleges  to  prove  that  baptismos  signifies 
purification,  is  drawn  from  John  iii.  25.  "  In  John  iii.  25,  Icatharismos  is 
used  as  synonymous  with  baptismos ;  and  the  usus  loqucndi,  as  it  regards 
the  religious  rite,  is  clearly  decided.     The  facts  of  the  case  are  these, 

429 


430  FIRST   REPLY   TO   PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

ver.  22,  23.  John  and  Jesus  were  baptizing,  one  in  Judea,  the  other  in 
Enon,  near  to  Salim,  and  in  such  circumstances  that  to  an  unintelligent 
observer  there  would  seem  to  be  a  rivalry  between  the  claims  of  the  two. 
The  disciples  of  John  might  naturally  feel  that  Jesus  was  intruding  into 
the  province  of  their  master :  they  might  even  believe  John  to  be  the 
Messiah,  and  thus  give  rise  to  the  sect  that  held  that  belief.  On  this 
point  a  dispute  arose  between  the  disciples  of  John  and  the  Jews,  (or  a 
Jew,  as  many  copies  read)  verse  25.  They  come  to  John  and  state  the 
case,  verse  26 :  '  Rabbi,  he  that  was  with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  to  whom 
thou  barest  witness,  behold,  the  same  baptizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  him;1 
plainly  implying  that  in  so  doing  he  was  improperly  interfering  with  the 
claims  of  John.  John  in  reply,  verse  27 — 31,  disclaims  all  honour 
except  that  bestowed  on  him  by  God,  of  being  the  forerunner  of  the 
Messiah,  and  rejoices  to  decrease  in  order  that  he  may  increase — thus 
justifying  the  course  which  was  so  offensive  to  his  disciples,  and  settling 
the  dispute  in  favour  of  the  claims  of  Christ.  The  argument  from  these 
facts  is  this :  The  dispute  in  question  was  plainly  a  specific  dispute  con- 
cerning baptism,  as  practised  by  Jesus  and  John,  and  not  a  general 
dispute  on  the  subject  of  purification  at  large ;  so  that  zetesisperi  baptismou 
is  the  true  sense ;  and  if  it  had  been  so  written,  the  passage  would  have 
been  regarded  by  all  as  perfectly  plain.  But  instead  of  baptismou,  John 
has  used  katharismon,  because  the  sense  is  entirely  the  same.  In  other 
words  '  a  question  concerning  baptism,'  and  '  a  question  concerning  puri- 
fication,'were  at  that  time  modes  of  expression  perfectly  equivalent ;  that 
is,  baptismos  is  a  synonyme  of  Icatharismos." 

To  this  I  reply,  1.  Mr.  B.  says,  "On  this  point  a  dispute  arose."  On 
what  point?  As  I  understand  the  author,  it  is  with  respect  to  the  con- 
flicting claims  of  John  and  Jesus.  This  is  the  obvious  reference,  and  this 
is  confirmed  as  his  meaning,  by  his  afterwards  saying  that  John  settled 
this  dispute  in  favour  of  the  claims  of  Christ.  Now  this  is  not  at  all  the 
point  to  which  the  question  at  issue  between  the  disciples  of  John  and 
the  Jews  had  reference.  That  question  was  about  purifying,  and  not  at 
all  about  the  claims  of  John  and  Jesus.  For  anything  that  appears  in 
the  document,  the  Jews  might  never  have  heard  of  Jesus. 

2.  The  author  says,  "  They  come  to  John  and  state  the  case."  They 
did  not  state  to  John  the  case  concerning  purification ;  they  stated  ano- 
ther case  quite  different.  What  they  stated  to  John  was  an  expression 
of  surprise  that  another  person  was  baptizing,  and  especially  that  he  was 
more  successful  than  John  himself.  As  this  statement  was  for  the  pur- 
pose of  eliciting  a  reply  from  John,  I  have  no  objection  that  it  shall  be 
called  a  question,  though  not  so  in  form.  But  if  it  is  a  question,  it  is  one 
different  from  that  at  issue  between  the  disciples  of  John  and  the  Jews. 
John  replies  to  this  question,  but  says  nothing  about  purification,  because 
nothing  with  respect  to  it  was  submitted  to  him. 

3.  Mr.  B.  says  that  "  the  dispute  in  question  was  plainly  a  specific  dis- 
pute concerning  baptism  as  practised  by  John  and  Jesus."  The  dispute 
had  no  relation  to  the  baptism  of  John  and  Jesus ;  the  dispute  does  not 
imply  the  existence  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  nor  of  himself. 

4.  The  author  tells  us  that  it  was  not  "  a  general  dispute  on  the  sub- 


FIRST   REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER.  431 

ject  at  large."  The  dispute  was  a  dispute  on  the  subject  of  purification 
generally.  This  does  not  admit  dispute  with  respect  to  any  who  submit 
to  the  assertion  of  the  document.  Katharismos  is  not  a  species  of  puri- 
fication, but  purification  without  reference  to  species.  Mr.  B.  assumes 
that  katharismos  is  the  appropriated  name  of  the  rite  of  baptism.  This 
is  not  only  a  groundless,  but  a  false  assumption.  In  early  church  history, 
it  came  with  a  multitude  of  other  words  and  phrases  to  be  applied  to 
baptism,  but  at  this  period  of  its  history  it  had  no  such  application.  At 
this  period,  to  speak  among  the  Jews  of  baptism  under  the  appropriated 
name  katharismos,  would  be  to  speak  unintelligibly.  Mr.  B.  mistakes 
the  meaning  of  katharismos  as  well  as  of  baptismos.  It  could  not  come 
to  designate  baptism  specifically  on  any  other  principle  than  that  of 
appropriation,  by  which,  though  general  in  its  original  extent,  it  might 
be  limited  by  use.  If  assumption  would  do  the  business,  Mr.  B  would 
prove  his  point. 

5.  The  writer  tells  us  here  that  the  phrase  a  question  about  purifica- 
tion, is  in  sense  the  same  as  if  it  had  been  said,  a  question  about  baptism. 
I  have  shown  that  this  is  false.  But  in  addition  to  this  I  remark,  that 
even  if  the  word  baptism  itself  had  been  used  instead  of  purification,  it 
would  not  have  referred  to  a  dispute  concerning  the  conflicting  claims 
of  John  and  Jesus.  A  question  about  baptism,  and  a  question  about 
the  conflicting  claims  of  two  persons  engaged  in  baptizing,  are  surely 
two  very  different  questions.  This  confusion  of  ideas  does  not  argue 
well  for  the  perspicacity  of  the  antagonist  with  whom  I  am  now  about 
to  engage.  Even  on  this  supposition  the  dispute  between  the  disciples 
of  John  and  the  Jews  about  baptism,  would  have  been  a  different  mat- 
ter from  that  submitted  to  John,  and  to  which  nothing  in  philosophy  at 
all  applies. 

6.  Mr.  B.  makes  the  general  word  katharismos  specific,  in  conformity 
to  the  word  baptizo,  and  the  specific  word  baptizo  he  makes  general,  in 
conformity  to  the  word  katharismos,  so  that  in  fact  he  makes  each  of 
the  words  both  general  and  specific.  Why  does  he  consider  katharismos 
specific?  Because  it  here,  he  thinks,  referte  to  the  specific  rite  of  bap- 
tism. Why  does  he  make  baptizo  here  signify  purification  in  general  ? 
Because  he  thinks  it  to  be  a  synonyme  of  katharizo.  Does  not  this  make 
each  of  the  words  both  general  and  specific,  at  the  same  time  ?  Is  this 
philological  ?     This  is  critical  legerdemain. 

So  confident  is  the  writer  that  he  has  succeeded  on  this  part  of  the 
subject,  that  he  adds,  "  The  only  mode  of  escaping  this  result  is  to  say, 
that  as  immersion  in  water  involves  purification,  and  is  a  kind  of  purifi- 
cation, so  it  may  have  given  rise  to  a  question  on  the  subject  of  purifi- 
cation at  large :  but  to  this  I  reply,  that  the  whole  scope  of  the  passage 
forbids  such  an  idea.  The  question  was  not  general,  but  specific,  being 
caused  by  the  concurrence  of  two  claims  to  baptize ;  and  so  was  the 
reply  of  John." 

It  is  no  part  of  my  duty  to  show  the  process  which  led  from  one  of 
those  questions  to  the  other ;  this  it  might  be  impossible  to  ascertain 
without  any  injury  to  my  cause.  But  nothing  can  be  more  natural  than 
that  a  question  about  purification  should  be  suggested  by  a  rite  that  was 


432  FIRST    REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER. 

an  emblem  of  purification,  and  that  this  should  lead  to  a  comparison  of 
the  baptism  of  John  and  of  Jesus.  But  I  will  not  deign  to  allege  this 
in  argument :  my  business  is  with  the  document  before  me.  Anything 
expressed  or  necessarily  implied,  I  will  meet ;  but  I  sternly  refuse  to 
know  anything  but  what  is  in  evidence. 

But  what  sort  of  a  reply  is  this  which  the  author  gives  to  the  argu- 
ment which  he  professes  to  meet?  The  question,  he  says,  is  not  general, 
but  specific.  The  question  is  expressly  stated  as  general,  and  not  specific; 
for  it*  is  a  question  about  katharismos,  which  is  purification  without 
regard  to  species.  The  word  is  as  general  as  is  purification,  the  corres- 
ponding word  in  English.  "  It  was  caused,"  he  says,  "  by  the  concur- 
rence of  two  claims  to  baptize."  It  was  not  caused  by  the  concurrence 
of  two  claims  to  baptize ;  for  these  claims  are  never  mentioned  with 
regard  to  the  dispute.  If  we  had  not  the  document  in  our  hands,  we 
should  be  led  to  think,  from  Mr.  B.'s  representation,  that  the  dispute 
was  between  the  disciples  of  John  and  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  with 
respect  to  conflicting  claims  between  their  masters. 

"  Moreover,"  continues  Mr.  B.,  "  to  assume  a  general  dispute  on 
purification  renders  the  whole  scope  of  the  passage  obscure ;  as  is  evi- 
dent from  the  fact,  that  those  who  have  not  seen  that  in  this  case  katha- 
rismos  is  a  synonyme  of  baptismos,  are  much  perplexed  to  see  what  a 
dispute  on  purification  in  general  has  to  do  with  the  facts  of  the  case." 

Assume!  Who  is  it  that  makes  assumptions?  We  assume  nothing 
in  the  whole  controversy.  That  the  dispute  was  about  purification,  and 
not  about  a  specific  rite  of  purification,  is  in  express  evidence  from  the 
word.  And  what  necessity  is  there  to  show  how  the  statement  to  John, 
and  John's  answer,  bear  on  the  subject  of  purification,  when  that  state- 
ment and  that  answer  never  glance  at  the  question  of  purification  ? 

"  The  origin  of  the  dispute,  from  the  concurrence  of  two  claims  to 
baptize,"  says  the  author,  "  is  obviously  indicated  by  the  particle  oun, 
in  ver.  25,  showing  undeniably  that  the  events  just  narrated  gave  rise  to 
the  question."  How  can  any  particle  in  the  twenty-fifth  verse  indicate 
the  origin  of  the  dispute,  from  the  concurrence  of  two  claims  to  baptize, 
when  previously  to  that  verse  there  is  no  mention  of  such  concurrence  ? 
If  the  question  arose  from  the  events  just  narrated,  how  could  it  arise 
from  a  concurrence  of  conflicting  claims?  No  doubt  the  dispute  about 
purification  originated  in  the  baptism  of  John ;  but  this  does  not  imply 
that  baptism  signifies  purification,  nor  that  purification  signifies  baptism. 

"And  what  reason  is  there,"  says  Mr.  B.,  "  for  denying  this  conclu- 
sion ?  None  but  the  fear  of  the  result."  It  is  not  so,  President  Beecher  : 
fear  of  the  result  never  in  a  single  instance  prevented  me  from  admitting 
a  sound  argument.  I  do  not  fear  the  result ;  for  truth  is  my  object, 
wherever  it  may  lie.  But  in  this  instance  I  can  have  no  temptation  to 
fear  the  result,  because  I  could  admit  that  purification  here  refers  to 
baptism  specifically,  and  still  defeat  President  Beecher.  He  has  laboured 
in  vain ;  he  builds  on  a  false  first  principle.  He  assumes  that  if  two 
words  refer  to  the  same  ordinance,  they  must  be  identical  in  meaning. 
Nothing  is  more  unfounded — palpably  unfounded.  There  are  situations 
in  which  two  words  may  be  interchanged  at  the  option  of  the  writer, 


FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  433 

while  they  are  not  perfectly  synonymous.     They  may  so  far  agree  that 
they  may  be  equally  fitted  to  fill  a  situation,  while  each  has  a  distinct 
meaning.  This  is  so  obvious  a  truth,  that  I  am  perfectly  astonished  that 
it  should  lie  hid  from  the  President  of  the  College  of  Illinois.     This  is 
a  fact  that  lies  on  the  very  surface  of  philosophy ;  there  is  hardly  a  page 
of  writing  in  which  it  might  not  be  illustrated.  The  varied  designations 
given  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism  by  the  ancients,  fully  manifest  the 
truth  of  this  observation.     Baptism  they  called  regeneration,  yet  they 
did  not  consider  that  the  word  baptism  and  the  word  regeneration  were 
identical  in  meaning.  Baptism  was  the  name  of  the  rite  from  its  mode, 
regeneration  was  the  effect  produced  by  the  observance  of  the  rite.  They 
called  baptism  renewing,  renovation,  or  restoration,  for  a  like  reason ; 
but  they  did  not  understand  the  word  baptism  to  signify  any  of  these. 
Without  exception,  they  all  considered  the  word  to  mean  immersion, 
while  they  gave  it  other  names  from  its  nature,  effects,  &c.  They  called 
baptism  sanctification,  because  they  supposed  persons  to  be  sanctified 
by  it ;  not  because  they  considered  the  two  words  as  synonymous.  They 
called  baptism  illumination,  and  the  baptized  they  called  the  illuminated; 
yet  they  did  not  understand  the  word  baptism  as  signifying  illumination. 
Illumination  was  the  effect  of  the  rite.     They  called  baptism  consecra- 
tion, yet  they  did  not  do  so  because  they  considered  the  word  to  have 
this  meaning,  but  because  the  rite  had  this  effect.    They  called  baptism 
initiation,  because  initiation  was  effected  by  the  rite,  not  because  it  was 
signified  by  the  word  baptism.     They  called  baptism  the  laver  or  ivash- 
ing;  not  because  they  considered  the  word  to  signify  this,  but  because 
washing  was  effected  by  immersion  in  pure  water.  They  called  baptism 
the  anointing;  because,  in  their  view,  persons  are   anointed  with  the 
Spirit  in  baptism ;  not  because  baptism  signifies  anointing.  They  called 
baptism  the  gift  or  grace ;  yet  they  did  not  suppose  that  the  word  bap- 
tism denoted  gift  or  grace.     They  spoke  of  baptism  as  the  seal,  yet 
they  did  not  understand  the  word  baptism  as  signifying  seal.     They 
called  baptism  purification ;  yet  they  did  not  on  that  account,  with  Presi- 
dent Beecher,  understand  the  word  baptism  as  signifying  purification. 
Baptism  was  an  immersion  which  produced  purification.     Would  he 
deserve  the  name  of  a  philologist,  who  would  say,  that  the  word  bap- 
tism is  identical  in  signification  with  all  these  words,  and  that  all  these 
words  are  identical  in  signification  with  each  other? 

I  might  illustrate  my  doctrine  by  the  various  names  which  are  given 
to  the  followers  of  Christ.  They  are  called  Christians,  disciples,  believers, 
saints,  fyc.  Are  these  words  identical  in  meaning?  Does  not  each 
of  these  names  designate  the  persons  in  a  different  manner  ? 

The  very  case  in  hand  may  be  verified  in  our  own  language.  When 
it  is  asked,  what  is  the  name  of  the  child  ?  it  may  sometimes  be  answer- 
ed, "  it  is  not  yet  baptized."  Are  we  from  this  to  conclude  that  the 
word  baptism  is  supposed  to  mean  the  giving  of  a  name  ?  This  is  not 
implied ;  the  thing  implied  is  that  the  name  is  given  in  baptism.  In  like 
manner,  a  vast  variety  of  names  is  given  to  the  rite  of  baptism,  not 
implying  that  they  are  synonymous  with  the  word,  but  that  they  are 
designations  of  the  same  ordinance. 

55 


434  FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

The  English  word  immerse  itself,  according  to  Mr.  B.'s  philology,  may 
be  made  to  signify  cleanse.  The  surgeon,  after  an  operation,  says, 
"  cleanse  the  instrument."  The  assistant  immerses  it  in  water.  Im- 
merse, then,  signifies  to  cleanse. 

Sprinkle  may  on  the  same  principle  be  made  to  signify  to  purify. 
Purification  is  effected  by  sprinkling,  therefore  sprinkling  signifies  puri- 
fication. In  Heb.  ix.  22,  the  same  thing  that  is  called  purging  with 
blood,  is  in  the  preceding  case  called  sprinkling  with  blood.  Does  it 
not  follow  from  Mr.  B.'s  philology,  that  sprinkling  means  purging?  But 
is  it  not  obvious  to  every  child,  that  sprinkling  designates  the  mode 
of  applying  the  blood,  and  purging  the  effect  of  the  blood  so  applied? 
Mr.  B.,  then,  has  failed  in  every  point.  He  has  laboured  to  prove  that 
katharismos,  John  iii.  25,  refers  specifically  to  baptism,  as  practised  by 
John  and  Jesus.  His  proof  I  have  demolished.  He  assumes  that  if 
katharismos  here  refers  to  baptism,  the  words  must  be  identical  in 
meaning.     This  I  have  shown  to  be  a  gross  fallacy. 

Section  II. — The  next  argument  by  which  Mr.  B.  endeavours  to 
prove  that  baptismos  signifies  purification,  is  taken  from  Malachi.  "  This 
view  alone,"  says  he,  "  fully  explains  the  existing  expectation  that  the 
Messiah  would  baptize.  That  the  Messiah  should  immerse,  is  nowhere 
foretold ;  but  that  he  should  purify,  is  often  and  fully  predicted :  but 
especially  is  this  foretold  in  that  last  and  prominent  prophecy  of  Malachi, 
(iii.  1 — 3,)  which  was  designed  to  fill  the  eye  of  the  mind  of  the  nation, 
until  he  came.  He  is  here  represented  to  the  mind  in  all  his  majesty 
and  power,  but  amid  all  other  ideas  that  of  purifying  is  most  prominent. 
He  was  above  all  things  to  purify  and  purge,  and  that  with  power  so 
great,  that  few  could  endure  the  fiery  day.  Who  may  abide  the  day  of 
his  coming,  and  who  shall  stand  when  he  appeareth? 

This  is  so  destitute  of  all  appearance  of  a  bearing  on  the  subject,  that 
it  deserves  no  attention.  It  is  answer  sufficient  to  this  allegation  that 
this  prophecy  could  have  been  perfectly  fulfilled,  had  no  rite  of  purifica- 
tion, in  any  mode,  ever  been  appointed.  It  requires  more  than  the 
patience  of  Job,  to  be  able  to  mention  such  an  argument  without  ex- 
pressing strong  feelings.  Could  not  Christ  have  been  a  Purifier,  though 
he  had  instituted  neither  baptism  nor  the  Lord's  supper  ?  His  being 
said  then  to  be  a  Purifier,  does  not  imply  that  a  certain  rite  implying 
purification,  must  be  called  purification.  May  not  a  rite  import  purifi- 
cation, though  purification  is  not  its  name?  Even  if  it  had  been  fore- 
told by  Malachi  that  the  Messiah  should  appoint  a  rite  of  purification, 
that  rite  might  have  been  designated,  not  purification,  but  have  had  its 
name  from  its  mode,  or  a  thousand  other  circumstances.  It  might  have 
been  called  immersion,  or  sprinkling,  or  effusion,  according  to  the  mode 
appointed ;  as  it  might  have  been  designated  from  any  one  of  a  multi- 
tude of  other  relations.  Circumcision  denoted  purification,  yet  it  had 
its  name  from  the  external  operation.  The  passover  had  its  name  on 
the  same  principle.  This  argument  manifests  such  a  want  of  discrimi- 
nation, and  a  confusion  of  things  which  differ,  that  the  mind  on  which 
it  has  force,  must  be  essentially  deficient  in  those  powers  that  qualify  for 
the  discussion  of  critical  questions. 


FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  435 

"  Suppose,  now,  the  word  baptizo  to  mean  as  I  affirm,"  says  the 
author,  "  the  whole  nation  are  expecting  the  predicted  purifier ;  all  at 
once  the  news  goes  forth  that  a  great  purifier  has  appeared,  and  that  all 
men  flock  to  him  and  are  purified  in  the  Jordan.  How  natural  the 
inference !  The  great  purifier  so  long  foretold,  has  at  last  appeared,  and 
how  natural  the  embassy  of  the  priests  and  Levites  to  inquire,  Who  art 
thou  ?  And  when  he  denied  that  he  was  the  Messiah,  or  either  of  his 
expected  attendants, how  natural  the  inquiry,  'Why  purifiest  thou, then? 
It  is  his  work — of  him  it  is  foretold,  why  dost  thou  intrude  into  his  place 
and  do  his  work?'  " 

I  might  with  perfect  safety  admit  that  on  John's  appearance,  the 
report  went  forth  that  a  great  purifier  had  appeared.  For  if  he  was  a 
great  immerser,  he  was  a  great  purifier,  as  immersion  was  for  the  purpose 
of  emblematical  purification.  He  might,  from  the  administration  of  this 
ordinance,  have  been  called  a  great  purifier,  while  the  name  of  the  ordi- 
nance was  immersion,  or  sprinkling,  or  anything  whatever.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  however,  the  news  did  not  go  forth  that  a  great  purifier,  but  a 
great  immerser  had  appeared ;  and  it  is  not  said  that  all  men  came  and 
were  purified  by  him  in  Jordan,  but  that  they  were  immersed.  The 
question  of  the  priests  and  Levites  was  as  apposite,  on  the  supposition 
that  the  word  baptizo  signified  to  immerse,  or  sprinkle,  or  pour,  as  if  it 
signified  to  purify ;  because  whatever  was  the  mode  and  whatever  v/as 
the  name,  the  nature  of  the  ordinance  implied  purification.  There  is 
no  evidence  that  a  general  expectation  prevailed  that  the  Messiah  should 
baptize,  or  use  any  rite  of  purification ;  and  had  there  been  such  an 
expectation,  and  even  a  prophecy  on  which  to  found  it,  the  fact  could 
make  no  difference.  The  question  put  to  John,  on  the  supposition  that 
he  was  not  the  Messiah,  was  not  founded  either  on  the  name  or  the 
nature  of  the  rite,  but  on  his  employing  a  new  rite.  If  he  was  not  the 
Messiah,  or  at  least  Elias,  or  the  prophet,  they  judged  it  improper  for 
him  to  introduce  a  new  baptism.  It  was  not  with  the  name  of  the  rite 
they  quarrelled.  Does  Mr.  B.  imagine  that  had  the  name  of  the  rite  been 
immersion,  the  question  of  the  priests  and  Levites  would  have  been  pre- 
cluded ?  Such  reasoning  is  perfectly  an  astonishment  to  me.  I  have 
greater  difficulty  in  conceiving  how  it  can  have  force  on  any  mind,  than 
I  have  in  refuting  it.  How  can  any  discriminating  person  think  that  the 
priests  and  Levites  objected  to  John's  baptism  on  the  ground  that  to  use 
this  rite  was  to  intrude  into  the  work  of  the  Messiah,  when  on  the  very  ques- 
tion it  is  admitted  that  the  thing  might  be  done  by  Elias  or  the  prophet? 
Is  it  not  astonishing  that  gentlemen  in  eminent  situations,  will  risk  the 
character  of  their  understanding  by  pouring  forth  such  crudities?  It  is 
painful  for  me  to  use  the  knife  so  freely :  but  I  must,  for  the  sake  of  the 
Christian  public,  find  out  the  disease  under  which  my  patient  labours. 
It  is  better  that  one  delinquent  should  suffer,  than  that  a  multitude 
should  be  drawn  into  error  by  his  transgression. 

"  In  view  of  these  facts,"  says  the  writer,  "  I  do  not  hesitate  to 
believe  most  fully,  that  the  idea  which  came  up  before  the  mind  of  the 
Jews  when  the  words  loannes  o  Baptistes  were  used,  was  not  John  the 
immerser,  or  John  the  dipper,  but  John  the  purifier,  a  name  peculiarly 


436  FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

appropriate  to  him  as  a  reformer — as  Puritan  was  to  our  ancestors,  and 
for  the  same  reason." 

In  view  of  these  facts !  Shall  he  by  sleight  of  hand  be  allowed  to  con- 
vert his  suppositions  into  facts?  What  are  the  facts?  Are  we  with  the 
child  to  take  his  dreams  for  realities?  There  is  not  in  all  the  references 
Dne  fact  that  will  bear  the  conclusion. 

But  there  is  an  inconsistency  in  this  specimen  of  philology:  it  makes 
the  title  of  John  originate  in  the  administration  of  a  rite  of  purification, 
yet  its  adaptation  to  him  is  grounded  on  his  being  a  reformer,  for  the 
same  reason  that  our  ancestors  were  called  Puritans.  Now.  if  John  was 
the  purifier  as  the  administrator  of  a  rite,  he  was  not  a  purifier  as  a 
reformer.  If  he  was  a  purifier  as  a  reformer,  he  would  have  been  a 
purifier  had  he  administered  no  baptism  at  all.  There  is  great  confusion 
in  the  ideas  of  this  writer.  If  John  was  called  the  purifier  on  account 
of  the  rite  which  he  administered,  he  was  not  so  called  as  a  Puritan. 
This  is  my  philology. 

Section  III. — Mr.  B.'s  next  argument  is,  "  The  contrast  made  by 
John  between  his  own  baptism  and  that  of  Christ,  illustrates  and  con- 
firms the  same  view." 

Without  adverting  to  Acts  ii.  1,  which  is  evidently  a  fulfilment  of 
John's  declaration  referred  to,  the  phrase  immersed  in  the  Spirit,  as  refer- 
ring to  the  ordinary  work  of  the  Spirit,  is  perfectly  analogous  to  steeping 
the  senses  in  forgetfuhiess ,  with  which  all  are  acquainted;  and  the  contrast 
between  the  immersion  of  the  rite,  and  the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit, 
is  exactly  on  the  same  principle  with  "  Be  not  drunk  with  wine,  but  be 
filled  with  the  Spirit."  The  abundance  of  the  Spirit  in  sanctification  is 
contrasted  with  the  abundance  of  wine  in  the  drunkard.  If  we  may  be 
said  to  he  filled  with  the  Spirit,  in  contrast  with  the  drunkard  filled  with 
wine,  may  we  not  be  said  to  be  immersed  in  the  Spirit,  in  contrast  with 
the  immersion  in  water  in  the  rite  of  baptism  ?  The  contrast  is  obvious 
and  just.  Is  it  not  sometimes  said  of  persons  distinguished  for  humanity 
and  kindness,  that  their  souls  are  steeped  in  the  milk  of  human  nature  ? 
There  is  no  more  incongruity  in  immersing  a  person  in  the  Spirit,  than 
there  is  in  steeping  a  soul  in  milk.  Such  arguments  and  such  objections 
are  mere  trifling. 

"  This  sense,"  continues  Mr.  B.,  "  is  never  transferred  to  the  mind,  in 
any  language,  so  far  as  I  know,  to  indicate  anything  like  the  effects  of 
the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Were  this  true,  it  is  nothing  to  the  purpose ;  but  having  by  the  use 
of  the  language  found  that  the  word  has  this  meaning,  and  no  other,  the 
example  in  question  is  an  instance  in  which  it  is  applied  to  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Mr.  B.  has  adopted  some  of  my  philological  doctrines.  I  will 
give  him  another  lesson,  which  will  prevent  him  from  again  alleging 
such  an  objection.  It  is  this  :  Metaphor  is  not  bound  to  find  examples 
to  justify  its  particular  figures ;  but  may  indulge  itself  wherever  it  finds 
resemblance.  It  gives  words  a  new  application,  but  does  not  invest  them 
with  a  new  meaning.  It  is  not,  then,  subject  to  the  law  of  literal 
language,  which,  for  the  sense  of  every  word,  needs  the  authority  of  use. 


FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  437 

This  I  have  established  in  my  Treatise  on  the  Figures  of  Speech,  in 
opposition  to  the  common  doctrine  of  rhetoricians.  With  respect  to  the 
point  in  hand,  I  would  maintain  my  ground,  if  a  single  other  example  of 
the  figurative  use  of  this  word  could  not  be  produced.  Any  word  may 
be  used  figuratively  in  any  view  in  which  there  is  likeness.  This  argu- 
ment of  Mr.  B.  is  perfectly  the  same  with  that  of  Dr.  Wiseman  in 
proof  of  transubstantiation.  He  admits  that  the  phrases,  this  is  my  body, 
and  eat  my  Jlesh,  may  be  used  figuratively ;  but  if  they  are  used  figura- 
tively, they  are  always  used  in  a  bad  sense  He  challenges  his  opponents 
to  show  an  instance  in  which  it  is  otherwise.  Now  this  sophism  has,  in 
my  doctrine  of  the  metaphor,  a  complete  answer.  Metaphors  are  not 
bound  by  the  law  of  literal  language :  they  need  not  the  sanction  of  use. 
A  writer  may  use  as  many  as  are  just  in  resemblance ;  and  the  more 
original  they  are,  they  are  the  more  meritorious. 

But  what  shall  we  think  of  the  philologist,  who  says,  "  When  the  agent 
is  spiritual,  the  object  spiritual,  and  the  means  spiritual,  and  the  end 
purity,  immersion  is  out  of  the  question?"  Must  I  dignify  such  trifling 
with  refutation  ?  When  God  says,  I  will  potir  out  my  Spirit,  is  not  the 
agent  spiritual,  the  object  spiritual,  and  the  means  spiritual,  and  the  end 
purity  ?  Shall  we,  then,  blaspheme  the  word  of  God,  and  say,  pouring 
is  out  of  the  question  ?  Literal  pouring  and  immersing  are  out  of  the 
question,  not  figurative  pouring  and  immersing.  If  one  mode  of  employ- 
ing water  may  be  figuratively  applied  to  the  Spirit,  what  will  prevent 
another  mode  from  being  applied?  Ignorant  persons  in  reading  Mr.  B.'s 
work  will  think  that  he  is  a  deep  philosopher,  and  that  he  is  a  profound 
philologist.  But  the  smallest  degree  of  perspicacity  will  enable  any  one 
to  see  that  his  philosophy  is  very  shallow  sophistry.  I  have  no  wish  to 
be  severe ;  but  no  man  ought  with  impunity  to  be  allowed  to  trifle  so 
egregiously  with  the  disciples  of  Christ,  and  with  the  awful  command- 
ments of  the  eternal  Jehovah. 

The  author  thinks  that  his  view  is  confirmed  by  comparing  the 
language  of  John  with  the  passage  from  Malachi,  and  refers  to  the  word 
diakathai'iei.  But  how  could  it  escape  him  that  the  purging  of  the  floor 
refers  not  to  baptism  at  all  in  any  view?  Indeed,  it  refers  not  even  to 
the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  sanctification,  but  is  the  separating  of  the  chaff 
from  the  wheat.  But  I  will  for  a  moment  indulge  him  in  his  whim. 
Let  this  purging  be  baptism ;  may  it  not  be  immersion  in  mode,  and 
purging  as  an  emblem  ?  The  language  of  Malachi  and  the  purification 
of  John  would  equally  accord  with  any  meaning  that  may  be  assigned 
to  the  word  baptism.  I  have  never  found  a  greater  want  of  discrimina- 
tion in  any  writer. 

Section  IV. — Mr.  B.  deduces  another  argument,  from  1  Cor.  xii.  13. 
In  this  passage  he  tells  us,  "The  Holy  Spirit  is  directly  said  to  baptize, 
and  in  this  case  all  external  acts  are  of  course  excluded,  and  purify  is 
the  only  appropriate  sense:  'For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into 
one  body,  and  have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit.'  "  Now  can 
anything  be  more  extravagantly  idle  than  this  ?  When  the  Holy  Spirit 
is   said  to  be  poured  out  by  God,  are  not    all  external    acts   equally 


438  FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

excluded?  Are  we,  then,  to  say  that  cheo  does  not  signify  to  pour? 
Believers  are  said  to  have  their  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience. 
All  external  acts  are  out  of  the  question.  Shall  we,  then,  say  that 
rantizo  does  not  signify  to  sprinkle?  Believers  are  said  to  wash  their 
robes,  and  to  make  them  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb.  All  external 
acts  are  out  of  the  question.  Are  we,  then,  to  say  that  pluno  does  not 
signify  to  wash  ?  Am  I  to  war  eternally  against  nonsense  ?  Even  the 
very  examples  alleged  by  himself  from  Chrysostom,  p.  23,  refute  him. 
Is  there  any  literal  immersion  in  the  phrases  immersed  in  cares,  immersed 
in  sins,  immersed  in  business  ? 

"  But  this  baptism,"  says  Mr.  B.,  "  is  as  much  a  real  work  of  the 
Spirit,  as  the  causing  to  drink  into  one  Spirit,  which  is  not  external,  but 
internal  and  real."  Who  doubts  it  ?  But  how  can  he  be  so  blind  as 
not  to  perceive  that  though  "  causing  to  drink  of  the  Spirit,"  is  an  in- 
ternal work  of  the  Spirit,  yet  drink  of  the  Spirit  is  as  much  a  figure 
relating  to  an  external  action,  as  is  immerse  by  the  Spirit  ?  If  believers 
are  here  said  to  be  immersed  by  the  Spirit,  they  are  also  said  to  be  made 
to  drink  by  the  same  Spirit.  Is  not  drinking  as  much  an  external 
action  as  immersing  ?  If  we  may  figuratively  drink,  may  we  not  figura- 
tively be  immersed?  The  writer  has  so  little  perspicacity  as  to  argue 
against  a  figurative  meaning  with  respect  to  the  word  immerse,  by  the 
very  authority  of  a  like  figurative  meaning  with  regard  to  drink.  If 
there  is  spiritual  drinking,  may  there  not  be  spiritual  immersing  ?  But 
we  have  not  yet  done  with  Mr.  B.'s  exploits  in  figurative  language.  He 
says  that  the  drinking  here  referred  to  is  not  external,  but  internal  and 
real.    According  to  this  philosophy,  literal  drinking  is  not  real  drinking . 

"  To  immerse  in  water,"  he  tells  us,  "  is  not  the  work  of  the  Spirit." 
Where  is  it  said,  Mr.  B.,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  baptizes  in  water?  And 
is  it  the  work  of  the  Spirit  to  pour  himself  out  on  believers  literally  ? 
Is  it  the  work  of  the  Spirit  literally  to  sprinkle  the  heart  ?  Such  cavil- 
ling is  unworthy  of  a  candid  mind  and  a  sound  understanding. 

Mr.  B.  founds  another  argument  on  the  relation  which  the  words 
baptize  and  purify  have  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  "  Baptizo  and 
katharizo,"  says  he,  "  are  so  similarly  used  in  connexion  with  the  for- 
giveness of  sins,  as  decidedly  to  favour  the  idea  that  they  are  in  a 
religious  sense  synonymous."  This  is  philological  mathematics ;  and  if 
there  is  no  error  in  the  statement,  or  in  the  process,  it  is  the  evidence  of 
an  axiom. — Two  quantities  that  are  equal  to  a  third  are  equal  to  one 
another.  But  a  mere  breath  will  destroy  this  mathematical  bubble.  It 
is  not  as  words  that  baptize  and  purify  agree  with  forgiveness  of  sins : 
for  neither  baptism  nor  purif  cation  is  as  a  word  identical  in  meaning 
with  forgiveness  of  sins.  Baptism  is  connected  with  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,  not  from  its  name,  but  from  the  nature  and  import  of  the  rite.  If 
baptism  in  its  import  is  essentially  connected  with  forgiveness  of  sins,  it 
will  have  the  same  relation  to  purification,  whatever  be  its  name. 

Faith  is  essentially  connected  with  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  as  well  as 
purification.  Is  faith  purification  ?  Holiness  is  essentially  connected 
with  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  as  well  as  faith.  Is  holiness  faith?  Repent- 
ance  is  essentially  connected  with  the  forgiveness  of  sins  as  well  as 


FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  439 

purification.  Is  repentance  purification  ?  On  the  same  principle  Uni- 
tarians allege  that  forgiveness  of  sins,  in  reference  to  Christ,  is  synony- 
mous with  healing  diseases. 

But  it  is  strange  to  astonishment  that  President  Beecher  has  not  per- 
ceived that  baptism  would  have  the  same  connexion  with  the  forgiveness 
of  sins,  whatever  might  have  been  the  word  employed  as  its  designation. 
If  the  nature  of  the  rite  imports  purification,  though  its  name  is  immer- 
sion, has  it  not  perfectly  the  same  relation  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  as 
if  its  name  were  purification?  Take  any  of  the  names  assigned  to  it  by 
the  ancients,  and  you  will  still  have  the  same  connexion  with  the  for- 
giveness of  sins.  But  does  each  of  these  words  signify  purification  ?  If 
baptism  is  called  regeneration,  it  is  connected  with  the  forgiveness  of 
sins.  Must  the  word  regeneration  on  that  account  signify  purification? 
This  argument  proceeds  on  an  amazing  want  of  discrimination.  Many 
things  essentially  connected  with  the  forgiveness  of  sins  are  entirely 
different  from  one  another.  Baptism  is  a  rite  emblematical  of  purifica- 
tion ;  but  this  does  not  imply  that  its  name  must  signify  purification. 
The  passover  was  a  rite  which  was  an  emblem  of  atonement  through 
the  blood  of  Christ,  or  if  you  will,  of  purification.  Does  this  imply  that 
the  word  passover  signifies  purification  or  atonement?  Whether  the  rite 
of  baptism  is  called  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  or  immersing,  or  popping, 
or  purifying,  or  consecrating,  or  initiating,  or  regeneration,  &c.  &c, 
it  has  the  same  relation  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  The  blood  of  Christ 
cleanses  from  all  sin :  baptism  emblematically  cleanses  from  sin :  the 
blood  of  Christ,  then,  and  the  emblematical  meaning  of  baptism,  have 
the  same  relations  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  Does  it  follow  that  the 
phrases,  blood  of  Christ  and  the  word  baptism,  are  synonymous? 

Mr.  B.  gives  us  a  dissertation  on  purification,  which  is  no  more  to  the 
purpose  than  a  treatise  on  logarithms.  He  then  tells  us,  "  between 
immersion  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins  no  such  associations  had  ever  been 
established."  Does  not  the  writer  here  take  for  granted  the  very  thing 
in  dispute?  He  set  out  with  saying  that  baptizo  and  katharizo  are 
similarly  used  with  respect  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins :  now  he  says  that 
immersion  has  no  such  connexion.  But  if  baptizo  has  such  a  connexion, 
immerse  must  have  the  same  connexion,  as  it  is  the  only  proper  transla- 
tion of  the  word  that  has  this  connexion.  Whatever  connexion  baptizo 
has  with  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  immerse  has  the  same  connexion. 

There  is  another  false  principle  at  the  bottom  of  this  remark :  it 
supposes  that  if  baptism  is  connected  with  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  its 
name  must  denote  this  connexion.  It  supposes  also,  that  if  a  word  has 
the  same  connexion  with  the  forgiveness  of  sins  with  another  word,  it 
must  have  the  same  meaning  with  that  word.  This  is  another  false 
principle.  Circumcision  was  connected  with  the  forgiveness  of  sins  in 
the  same  manner  as  purification;  but  did  the  word  circumcision  denote 
either  purification  or  forgiveness  of  sins?  It  was  the  nature  of  the  rite 
of  which  circumcision  was  the  name,  which  indicated  purification,  and 
was  connected  with  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  It  is  the  water  in  baptism 
that  indicates  purification,  notjthe  name  of  the, rite.  Immersion  is  an 
emblem  of  the  believer's  communion  and  oneness  with  Christ,  in  his 


440  FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

death,  burial,  and  resurrection.  If  mere  purification  was  designated  by 
baptism,  sprinkling  or  pouring  might  have  been  used  as  well  as  immerse. 
But  immersion  represents  the  whole  spiritual  body  of  Christ  as  dying 
with  him,  buried  with  him,  risen  with  him.  As  members  of  the  body  of 
Christ,  they  have  done  and  suffered  whatever  Christ  has  done  and  suf- 
fered for  them.  True  views  of  the  import  of  baptism  are  essentially 
connected  with  clear  views  of  the  Gospel. 

"  Now  if  any  word,"  says  Mr.  B.,  "  is  found  to  sustain  the  same  rela- 
tions as  Icatharizo  to  the  same  idea,  forgiveness  of  sins,  we  have  reason 
to  think  that  it  is  used  in  the  same  sense."  Here  is  a  philological  axiom ; 
but  it  is  a  philological  sophism.  First,  it  assumes  that  it  is  baptismos 
as  a  word,  that  is,  that  it  is  the  meaning  of  the  word,  that  has  the  sup- 
posed relation  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  But  baptismos  has  this  rela- 
tion only  as  designatory  of  an  ordinance,  which  in  its  nature  implies 
purification.  Baptismos  has  this  relation  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  only 
as  it  refers  to  the  rite  of  baptism. 

Secondly,  the  conclusion  is  false,  even  on  the  ground  on  which  it  pro- 
ceeds. Two  words  may  have  the  same  relation  to  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,  yet  not  be  identical  in  meaning.  Faith,  repentance,  regeneration, 
&c,  have  the  same  relation  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  yet  they  are  very 
far  from  being  identical.  If  each  of  the  words  signified  forgiveness  of 
sins,  they  must  all  indeed  have  the  same  signification ;  but  none  of 
these  signifies  forgiveness  of  sins.     This  is  a  childish  fallacy. 

He  concludes  this  argument  with  the  following  deduction :  "  Hence, 
as  baptizo  has  the  same  extent  of  application  with  Icatharizo,  and  as  it 
stands  in  the  same  relations  with  it  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  it  is  highly 
probable  that  it  has  the  game  sense."  Here,  again,  he  assumes  the 
point  in  debate.  Has  he  found  that  baptizo  has  the  same  extent  of 
application  with  Icatharizo?  If  this  is  in  evidence,  what  is  the  dispute? 
It  has  not  the  same  extent  of  application;  for  it  applies  to  no. purifica- 
tions but  such  as  were  immersions.  His  business  is  to  prove  that  it  has 
such  an  extent  of  application — not  to  assume  this  as  a  ground  of  argument. 

But  the  author  is  very  modest;  having  assumed  that  baptizo  has  the 
same  extent  of  application  with  Icatharizo,  instead  of  bearing  down  on 
me  with  all  the  force  of  an  axiom,  he  is  contented  with  claiming  a  high 
probability.  What !  highly  probable  !  If  the  words  are  of  the  same 
extent  in  application,  they  are  perfectly  identical  in  meaning.  What  is 
sameness  of  sense,  but  sameness  of  extent  of  application  ?  Not  only  has 
Mr.  B.  failed  in  proving  his  point  by  this  argument,  but  I  maintain  that 
on  such  ground  it  is  impossible  to  prove  the  meaning  of  a  word.  No 
sound  philologist  would  ever  think  of  availing  himself  of  such  are  source. 

Mr.  B.'s  next  argument  is,  that  "the  account  of  baptism  given  by  Jose- 
phus,  a  contemporary  Jew,  is  perfectly  in  accordance  with  this  view." 

The  account  which  Josephus  gives  of  the  baptism  of  John  in  no 
respect  confirms  the  view  of  President  Beecher.  Why  did  he  not  produce 
his  document?  Is  he  to  decide  as  a  judge?  Ought  he  not  as  a  lawyer 
to  exhibit  his  documents  and  his  statutes,  reasoning  from  their  necessary 
import?  Josephus  represents  John  as  exhorting  the  people,  practising 
justice  towards  each  other;  and  piety  towards  God,  to  come  to  immersion; 


FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  441 

declaring  that  the  immersing  would  be  acceptable  to  God,  when  done, 
not  in  deprecation  of  the  punishment  of  any  sins,  but  for  the  purifica- 
tion or  lustration  of  the  body, — the  soul  being  previously  purified  by 
righteousness.  Josephus,  as  might  be  expected,  gives  a  very  false  view 
of  the  object  of  John's  baptism ;  but  with  respect  to  the  meaning  of  its 
name  he  could  not  be  mistaken.  Instead  of  representing  this  name  as 
signifying  purification  in  its  meaning,  he  represents  the  object  of  it  to 
be  purification.  They  come  to  baptism  for  the  lustration  (epi  agneia)  of 
the  body.  Does  not  this  imply  that  baptism  is  one  thing,  and  lustration 
another?  Mr.  B.  confounds  a  thing  with  its  effect.  Baptism  is  the 
name  of  the  rite  from  its  mode :  lustration  is  its  effect  from  its  nature, 
being  an  immersion  in  pure  water. 

This  is  confirmed  by  the  contrast  which  Josephus  states,  denying  it 
to  be  the  proper  object  of  baptism- — namely  the  deprecation  of  punish- 
ment (epi  paraitesei).  This  is  an  object  which  he  supposes  some  might 
have,  but  which  woidd  not  be  acceptable  to  God.  Here  purification  of 
the  body  is  the  lawful  object  of  baptism;  deprecation  of  punishment  is 
a  wrong  object.  Now  we  might  as  well  confound  deprecation  of  pun- 
ishment with  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptism,  as  confound  purification 
with  it ;  for  both  are  supposed  to  be  its  object — the  one  a  lawful  object, 
the  other  an  unlawful  one.  Does  baptism,  then,  signify  deprecation  of 
punishment,  because  it  may  be  used  for  that  purpose  1  It  is  this  exces- 
sive deficiency  in  perspicacity  that  has  emboldened  Mr.  B.  to  undertake 
to  prove  that  baptismos  signifies  purification.  He  every  where  confounds 
things  that  are  different.  From  this  he  thinks  he  has  succeeded,  when 
he  finds  baptism  spoken  of  as  a  purification  ;  not  distinguishing  between 
the  name  of  the  rite  and  its  object.  If  one  word  can  supply  the 
place  of  another  in  a  certain  situation,  he  thinks  they  must  be  synony- 
mous. If  Josephus  speaks  of  baptism  as  performed  on  account  of 
purification,  he  states  that  he  has  proved  the  word  baptism  signifies  puri-r 
fication.  By  this  philology  he  might  prove  that  the  word  bapto  signifies 
to  draw  water,  or  to  fill,  because  these  words  could  sometimes  be  sub- 
stituted for  it.  In  one  of  the  examples  of  the  occurrence  of  this  word, 
which  I  gave  in  my  Treatise,  the  translation  is :  "  the  youth  held  the 
capacious  urn  over  the  water,  hasting  to  dip  it."  Here  fill  might  be 
substituted  for  dip;  but  does  dip  signify  to  fill?  Dipping  is  the  mode 
by  which  the  vessel  is  to  be  filled.  The  filling  of  the  vessel  was  the 
effect  of  the  dipping;  just  so  with  the  case  in  hand.  Immersion  is  the 
mode — purification  is  the  object.  They  were  two  things  as  different  as 
dipping  and  filling.  One  of  the  scholiasts,  in  expounding  my  next  ex- 
ample, actually  substitutes  the  words  aruomai  and  chemizo,  I  draw  water 
— I  fill.  "  Take  a  vessel,  ancient  servant,  and  having  dipped  it  in  the 
sea,  bring  it  hither."  On  Mr.  B.'s  principles  of  criticism,  this  would  be 
sufficient  authority  to  say  that  aruomai  and  chemizo  are  synonymous  with 
bapto.  Even  our  own  word  dip  might  be  made  synonymous  with  fill. 
We  may  say  either  dip  the  bucket,  or  fill  the  bucket.  The  writer  who 
confounds  distinctions  on  account  of  such  facts,  has  not  a  soul  for  philo- 
logical discussion. 

But  were  we  at  a  loss,  on  this  occasion,  to  know  in  what  sense  Jose- 

56 


442  FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

phus  here  uses  the  word  in  question,  where  can  we  learn  this  with  such 
authority  as  from  his  own  use  of  the  word  in  other  places  ?  In  every 
instance  in  which  he  uses  the  word,  he  employs  it  for  immersion,  and 
never  for  purification  or  anything  else. 

Section  V. — Mr.  B.  passes  next  to  Heb.  ix.  10.  But  this  passage 
cannot  afford  him  any  proof.  For  argument  sake,  I  will  first  admit  that 
the  word  here  is  used  for  purification  in  general.  As  it  does  not  refer 
to  the  rite  of  baptism,  it  may  have  a  secondary  signification  here,  with- 
out affecting  its  modal  meaning  in  the  Christian  ordinance.  Had  a  word 
twenty  significations,  they  must  in  every  instance  be  capable  of  being 
definitely  ascertained ;  otherwise  language  would  be  unintelligible.  That 
it  is  used  here  in  a  religious  application,  makes  no  difference.  Bapto 
even  in  the  art  of  dyeing  may  be  used  in  the  same  page  for  dyeing  and 
for  dipping ;  and  though  it  has  a  secondary  signification  of  dyeing,  it  is 
often  used  with  respect  to  religious  dipping.  The  admission,  then,  that 
the  word  here  signifies  purification,  does  not  at  all  affect  the  question  at 
issue.  I  have  undertaken  to  prove  that  the  word  has  not  a  secondary 
meaning;  but  I  have  not  done  so  on  the  ground  that  this  is  necessary 
for  the  proof  of  its  modal  meaning,  in  reference  to  the  ordinance  of 
baptism.  Now,  how  can  this  prove  that  the  word  in  reference  to  Chris- 
tian baptism  signifies  purification,  when  I  can  admit  all  that  Mr.  B. 
attempts  to  prove  from  the  passage,  without  admitting  his  conclusion? 
The  proof  which  I  have  adduced  for  the  modal  meaning  of  the  word 
in  reference  to  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  remains  still  unaffected. 

But  instead  of  surrendering  this  passage,  I  utterly  refuse  to  admit 
that  the  word  has  here  a  secondary  signification.  It  is  immersion  here 
as  well  as  every  where  else.  Let  us  now  examine  my  antagonist's 
reasoning. 

1.  "  Those  things  only  are  spoken  of  in  the  whole  discussion,"  says 
he,  "  which  have  a  reference  to  action  on  the  worshippers ;  that  is,  the 
whole  passage  relates  to  the  effects  of  the  Mosaic  ritual  entirely  on  per- 
sons, and  not  on  things.  The  gifts,  the  sacrifices,  the  blood  of  sprink- 
ling, the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  all  relate  to  persons." 

To  this  I  reply, — 1.  Whether  the  word  here  signifies  immersion  or 
purification,  it  must  extend  to  all  the  immersions  or  all  the  purifications 
under  the  law.  I  am  under  no  concern  to  separate  between  action  on 
persons,  and  action  on  things.  If  things  were  commanded  to  be  im- 
mersed, which  had  no  reference  to  persons,  they  must  be  included  here, 
if  the  word  signifies  immersion.  And  if  the  word  signifies  purification, 
and  if  things  are  commanded  to  be  purified  which  have  no  reference  to 
persons,  they  must  be  here  included.  This  distinction  can  bring  no 
relief:  for  whether  the  word  signifies  immersion  or  purification,  it  must 
extend  to  all  things  immersed  or  purified. 

2.  The  things  admitted  by  Mr.  B.  to  be  immersed,  had  an  equal  rela- 
tion to  the  person,  as  "  the  gifts,  the  sacrifices,  the  blood  of  sprinkling." 
Every  thing  immersed,  or  sprinkled,  or  in  any  way  purified,  had  a  refer- 
ence to  the  worshippers.  The  vessels  which  they  used,  the  garments 
which  they  wore,  the  utensils  which  in  the  service  they  employed, 


FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER.  443 

had  all  a  reference  to  their  persons  as  much  as  the  things  which  they 
offered. 

3.  Are  not  meats  and  drinks  among  the  things  referred  to  in  this 
chapter  1  And  had  not  their  vessels,  sacks  and  skins,  a  reference  to  their 
persons,  as  well  as  the  meats  and  drinks? 

4.  Was  not  the  blood  of  sprinkling  sprinkled  on  other  things  beside 
their  persons,  and  as  little  connected  with  their  persons,  as  the  things 
admitted  to  be  immersed  ?  Was  not  the  water  of  separation  sprinkled 
on  the  tents  and  all  the  vessels,  as  well  as  all  the  persons? 

5.  But  I  care  not  that  every  purification  referred  to  in  the  whole 
chapter,  referred  to  persons  solely  and  directly,  except  in  this  instance. 
I  am  not  disturbed  with  the  supposed  fact.  Whatever  be  the  meaning 
of  the  word,  it  must  extend  to  every  thing  it  includes,  whether  it  signifies 
immersion  or  purification. 

6.  Even  if  the  word  here  signified  purifications,  it  must  include  the 
very  things  which  Mr.  B  excluded.  If  certain  things  are  admitted  to 
be  immersed  by  the  law,  are  they  not  purified  by  that  operation?  Then, 
though  immersion  should  not  be  the  only  purification  here  denoted,  it  is 
at  least  included  among  the  purifications.  This  refutes  the  assertion 
that  the  things  admitted  to  be  immersed,  cannot  be  included  here  among 
the  things  said  to  be  purified. 

Mr.  B.  proceeds :  "  The  baptismoi  are  spoken  of  as  enjoined,  as  well  as 
the  other  rites.  But  of  persons  no  immersions  at  all  are  enjoined  under 
the  Mosaic  ritual."  I  have  already  shown  that  it  is  not  necessary  that 
immersion  of  persons  should  have  been  practised  under  the  law,  in  order 
that  the  word  should  here  signify  immersions.  There  is  no  evidence  that 
the  baptism  here  spoken  of  must  refer  to  persons.  They  are  not  said  to 
be  the  baptisms  of  persons,  nor  are  they  said  even  to  include  the  baptism 
of  persons.  It  is  enough  for  my  purpose  that  there  were  various  immer- 
sions under  the  law.  There  were  immersions  in  blood,  immersions  in 
blood  and  water;  immersions  in  water,  immersions  in  water  and  the 
ashes  of  a  red  heifer ;  immersions  in  oil,  and  immersions  in  fire.  But 
even  if  the  word  were  admitted  here  to  denote  purifications,  it  must 
include  all  purification,  and  extend  to  the  immersion  of  things. 

But  though  it  is  not  essential  to  the  defence  of  my  cause,  to  prove  the 
immersions  of  persons  under  the  law,  I  will  undertake  the  task  with  all 
its  supposed  impossibilities.  I  admit  that  the  Hebrew  modal  verb  is  not 
used  with  respect  to  persons,  yet  other  circumstances  imply  that  the 
mode  of  washing  was  immersion.  How  did  they  wash  Aaron  and  his 
sons  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  ?  Exod.  xxix.  4.  Must  there  not 
have  been  an  immersion  ?  Was  there  not  constantly  an  immersion  of 
the  hands  and  the  feet  of  the  priests,  before  engaging  in  the  service  ? 
Exod.  xxx.  18 — 20.  Now,  an  immersion  of  the  hands,  or  the  feet,  is  to 
me  as  good  as  an  immersion  of  the  whole  body  fifty  feet  under  water. 
Let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  we  are  not  discussing  a  passage  for  an  example 
of  Christian  baptism,  but  one  that  speaks  of  Jewish  baptism :  and  an 
immersion  of  a  part  is  to  me  as  good  as  an  immersion  of  the  whole.  All 
I  want  is  an  immersion  of  any  part  of  the  person. 

Solomon  made  ten  lavers  for  the  washing  of  such  things  as  they 


444  FIRST    REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

offered  for  the  burnt-offering.  This  was  one  of  the  baptisms  under  the 
law.  But  he  made  a  sea  for  the  priests  to  wash  themselves.  2  Chron.  iv.  6 
Was  not  this  washing  performed  by  immersion  ? 

Let  it  be  observed  that  the  apostle  is  here  speaking  of  the  Jewish 
baptisms  as  practised  under  the  law,  and  not  giving  an  account  of  their 
institution.  It  is  certainly  implied  that  the  baptisms  referred  to  were 
agreeable  to  the  law,  and  a  fulfilment  of  it ;  but  it  is  not  necessary  that 
they  should  have  been  presented  specifically  as  the  only  mode  of  fulfilling 
the  law  of  washing.  If  immersion  was  the  usual  mode  of  washing  the 
person,  and  if  that  mode  fulfilled  the  law,  may  not  a  writer  in  giving  an 
account  of  the  practice,  include  the  immersion  of  the  person  among  the 
immersions  under  the  law  ?  Was  it  not  a  fact  that  under  the  law  there 
was  an  immersion  of  the  person,  when  it  is  admitted  that  the  washing  of 
the  person  commanded  by  the  law  was  usually  performed  by  immersion, 
and  that  this  immersion  was  a  proper  fulfilment  of  the  law  ?  It  is  not 
necessary  that  immersion  should  be  the  only  mode  in  which  the  law  of 
washing  the  person  could  possibly  be  fulfilled ;  it  is  quite  enough  that 
it  was  the  usual  way,  and  a  lawful  way.  This  may  be  proved  by  a 
similar  fact.  The  immersion  of  Naaman  was  a  fulfilment  of  the  com- 
mand of  Elisha,  yet  it  was  a  specific  way  of  fulfilling  a  command  to 
wash  without  specification  of  mode.  Is  it  not  said  that  in  obedience 
to  the  command  of  the  prophet,  Naaman  dipped  himself  seven  times  in 
Jordan?  Now,  if  the  thing  prescribed  to  Naaman  had  been  a  rite 
enjoined  on  all  the  Jews,  which  in  every  age  they  usually  fulfilled  by 
dipping,  would  not  an  historian  speak  of  this  as  an  immersion  under  the 
law  ?  I  think  no  sound  understanding  can  hesitate  a  moment  to  receive 
this  solution.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  Trypho  in  Justin 
Martyr,  p.  228,  speaks  of  ablution  after  touching  any  of  the  things  for- 
bidden by  the  law  of  Moses,  as  baptism;  and  Justin  Martyr  every  where 
uses  the  word  for  immersion. 

"  Nor  is  the  washing  of  the  clothes,"  says  Mr.  Beecher,  "  so  often 
spoken  of,  enjoined  by  a  word  denoting  immersion."  Very  true,  but  are 
clothes  washed  without  immersion  ?  In  speaking,  then,  of  the  practice 
under  the  law,  was  not  the  washing  of  clothes  the  immersion  of  clothes? 
But  are  not  clothes  and  all  other  things  that  cannot  endure  the  purifica- 
tion of  fire,  to  pass  through  water  ?  Can  they  pass  through  water  with- 
out being  immersed?     Numb.  xxxi.  23. 

Section  VI. — The  argument  from  Tobit  vi.  2  is  utterly  valueless. — 
1.  This  is  not  ceremonial  purification,  or  fulfilment  of  the  law  of  Moses. 
The  young  man  went  down  to  the  river  to  bathe,  not  to  cleanse  himself 
from  ceremonial  defilement.  The  object  of  the  writer  in  bringing  his 
hero  to  the  river,  was  to  bring  about  the  exploit  with  the  fish. 

2.  That  complete  washing  of  the  person  without  immersion  is  possible, 
we  are  not  obliged  to  deny.  No  other  washing,  however,  is  called 
baptism.  If  a  man  washes  himself  without  immersion,  he  washes  without 
baptism. 

3.  This  washing  is  not  called  baptism. 

4.  Mr.  B.  here  mistakes  the  argument  of  the  Baptists,  which  he  here 


FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  445 

represents.  When  he  asks  for  what  purpose  the  young  man  went  down 
to  the  river,  he  answers:  "to  immerse  himself  of  course,  the  advocates 
of  immersion  will  reply."  This  is  not  fact.  Bathing  or  washing  is  the 
object :  immersion  is  the  mode  in  which  that  object  is  effected.  But  as 
the  mode  implies  the  effect,  the  mode  may  be  substituted  for  the  object, 
and  instead  of  saying  he  went  down  to  bathe,  it  may  be  said  he  went 
down  to  dip  himself.  The  Baptists  will  not  say  that  immersion  was  the 
object,  but  that  immersion  was  the  mode  of  effecting  the  object.  If  he 
went  down  to  bathe,  of  course  he  was  dipped. 

5.  But  Mr.  B.'s  criticism  on  the  Greek  word  kluzo,  here  employed  for 
washing,  is  entirely  false.  He  expounds  the  word  as  signifying  a  wash- 
ing all  around,  "just  as  a  man  stands  in  a  stream  and  throws  the  water 
all  over  his  body,  and  washes  himself  by  friction."  Mr.  B.  criticises 
from  imagination — not  from  knowledge  of  the  language.  Has  he  justified 
his  criticism  by  a  single  example  ?  He  seems  better  acquainted  with 
the  different  circumstances  in  the  operation  of  bathing,  than  with  the 
occurrences  of  the  word  on  which  he  undertakes  to  criticise.  The  simple 
word  signifies  to  deluge,  to  overwhelm,  to  inundate,  or  flow  over  any- 
thing, and  is  generally  applied  to  water  flowing  or  rolling  in  a  horizontal 
manner.  It  is  much  employed  in  the  medical  art,  and  occurs  in  Hip- 
pocrates times  without  number.  It  is  compounded  with  almost  all  the 
prepositions,  and  is  accordingly  modified  by  them,  k  is  applied  to  the 
waves  of  the  sea  rolling  over  the  shores,  or  running  in  high  currents  or 
billows  in  the  ocean.  It  is  with  kata  applied  to  the  general  deluge. 
With  peri,  the  preposition  with  which  it  is  here  compounded,  (periklu- 
sasthai)  it  is  applied  to  the  earth  which  is  all  around,  as  to  its  shores, 
washed  or  overflowed  by  the  waves  of  the  ocean ;  and  the  adjective  as 
an  epithet  is  given  as  a  characteristic  of  islands.  It  has  no  application 
to  the  throwing  up  of  water  about  himself  by  a  man  standing  in  a  river. 
There  is  no  friction  nor  hand-washing  in  this  word.  It  performs  its 
purpose  by  running  over,  either  gently  or  with  violence.  The  word  does 
not  signify  that  the  young  man  in  bathing  splashed  about  like  a  duck, 
or  rubbed  himself  like  a  collier  ;  but  that  he  threw  himself  into  the  river 
that  the  stream  might  flow  over  him.  He  was  then  baptized  indeed,  and 
much  more  than  baptized. 

6.  Even  according  to  his  own  showing,  the  argument  which  Baptists 
found  on  going  down  to  a  river  is  not  refuted,  nor  weakened.  The 
young  man  went  down  to  the  river  to  wash  his  whole  person  by  friction. 
Does  this  countenance  the  opinion  that  persons  usually  go  down  to  a  river, 
to  sprinkle  a  few  drops  of  water  on  the  face?  He  admits  that  it  is  pro- 
bable that  the  young  man  immersed  himself  also.  This,  then,  was  not 
less  than  baptism,  but  more  than  baptism.  Indeed,  if  the  rite  of  Christ 
required  a  whole  hogshead  of  water  to  be  poured  on  the  person,  there 
could  be  no  necessity  to  go  down  to  the  water.  But  in  performing  the 
rite  of  baptism,  persons  went  not  only  down  to  the  water,  but  into  the 
water,  which  to  every  candid  mind  must  ever  prove  immersion.  From 
the  manner  in  which  the  author  ushers  in  his  observations  on  this  sub- 
ject, one  would  think  that  he  had  made  a  discovery  that  would  silence 
the  argument  for  ever.     "Whole  volumes,"   says  he,  "of  argument, 


446  FIRST    REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER. 

as  we  all  know,  depend  on  going  down  to  the  river."  Whatever  are  the 
number  of  volumes  that  have  been  written  to  enforce  this  argument,  it 
remains  in  full  force  for  anything  this  author  has  done.  But  it  requires 
only  a  naked  statement,  to  make  it  irresistibly  evident  to  any  mind  not 
jaundiced  by  prejudice. 

"  The  only  immersions  enjoined  in  the  Mosaic  law,"  says  Mr.  B., 
"  were  immersions  of  things  to  which  no  reference  can  be  had  here — as 
vessels,  sacks,  skins,  &c.  In  this  case  no  act  was  performed  that  had 
any  tendency  to  affect  the  icorshipper,  but  only  the  thing  immersed." 
What!  Does  Mr.  B.  assert  that  the  purification  of  vessels,  &c,  had 
no  relation  to  the  worshipper  ?  Was  it  for  the  sake  of  the  vessels,  sacks, 
and  skins,  that  they  were  purified?  Was  it  not  because  the  things 
immersed  were  used  by  the  worshipper  ?  Were  not  their  vessels  purified 
for  the  very  same  reason  that  their  persons  were  purified  ?  Had  not  the 
vessels,  &c.  been  purified,  the  worshipper  using  them  would  have  been 
defiled.  What  had  God's  law  to  do  with  the  purification  of  the  vessels, 
&c.  of  the  Jews  more  than  of  the  heathens,  but  from  the  connexion  of 
those  things  with  the  worshippers?  Did  ever  so  monstrous  an  idea 
enter  the  mind  of  man,  as  that  God  commanded  a  rite  to  be  performed 
on  vessels,  &c.  which  had  no  reference  to  the  worshipper,  but  only  to 
the  things  immersed?  I  should  not  have  thought  that  there  could  have 
been  found  a  Christian  child,  who  would  make  such  an  assertion.  Had 
not  the  vessels,  &c.  the  same  relation  to  the  worshipper,  as  the  meats 
and  drinks  here  specified  ?  What  nearer  relation  had  a  pure  sacrifice 
to  the  worshipper,  than  had  a  pure  vessel  ?  Are  not  vessels,  &c.  ordi- 
nances of  the  flesh  as  well  as  meats  and  drinks?  In  fact,  every  thing 
enjoined  or  forbidden  in  the  ritual  ordinances  of  Moses,  had  a  reference 
to  the  flesh ;  they  are  all  carnal  ordinances. 

What  does  Mr.  B.  mean  when  he  asserts,  that  "  no  reference  can  be 
had  to  the  immersions  of  inanimate  things,  but  only  to  the  purification 
of  persons  ?"  Are  meats  and  drinks  persons  ?  Are  gifts  and  sacrifices 
persons  ?  Are  the  various  things  mentioned  belonging  to  the  tabernacle, 
persons?  Had  not  the  vessels  which  a  man  used  the  same  relation  to 
his  flesh,  as  the  meats  which  he  ate  ?  Why  must  the  baptisms  be  con- 
fined to  persons  ?  The  inanimate  things  immersed,  had  the  same  refer- 
ence to  the  persons  of  the  worshippers,  as  had  the  gifts  and  sacrifices, 
as  had  the  meats  and  drinks,  as  had  all  the  things  specified  in  this 
chapter. 

"  What  could  any  one  think,"  says  Mr.  B.,  "  that  the  immersion  of 
vessels,  of  earth  or  wood,  had  to  do  with  the  purifying  of  the  conscience 
or  the  heart  of  a  worshipper?"  The  immersion  of  those  things  had 
just  as  much  to  do  with  purifying  the  conscience,  as  had  the  purifica- 
tion of  the  person.  Neither  of  them  could  purify  the  conscience :  both 
of  them  purified  ceremonially  as  types  of  that  which  truly  purifies  ;  and 
the  purification  of  all  our  services  is  as  necessary  as  the  purification  of 
our  persons.  If  men,  mistaking  the  meaning  of  the  rites,  might  think 
that  the  purification  of  the  body  cleansed  the  conscience,  so  migl. 
they  think  of  the  purification  of  vessels.  Did  they  immerse  the  vessels, 
sacks,  and  skins,  to  purify  the  conscience  of  the  vessels,  sacks,  and 


FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  447 

skins?  Can  anything  be  more  plain  than  that  the  true  relation,  and  the 
falsely  supposed  effect  of  the  Jewish  rites  to  the  persons  of  the  worship- 
pers, were  the  same  with  respect  to  what  was  to  be  performed  on  inani- 
mate things,  as  to  what  were  to  be  performed  on  the  person  itself?  For 
what  purpose  were  inanimate  things  purified,  if  they  had  no  relation  to 
the  persons  of  the  worshippers  ? 

For  a  full  answer  to  the  objection  from  the  epithet  divers  or  different, 
I  refer  to  my  reply  to  the  Presbyterian  Review.  I  shall  here  merely 
observe,  that  though  immersion  is  always  the  same  as  to  mode,  there 
may  be  innumerable  different  immersions.  An  immersion  of  the  body 
is  a  different  immersion  from  the  immersion  of  things.  An  immersion 
of  a  variety  of  different  things  is  in  each  a  different  immersion.  An 
immersion  of  every  different  substance  is  a  different  immersion. 

Why  immersions  are  mentioned  rather  than  purifications  in  general, 
it  is  not  my  business  to  declare :  all  I  have  to  do  is  to  show  that  immer- 
sions and  not  purifications  are  mentioned.  It  is  to  me  quite  obvious 
that  there  is  no  necessity  to  mention  purifications  universally  in  this 
place :  the  apostle  is  not  professing  to  exhaust  the  subject  of  purifica- 
tion, but  to  give  a  specimen  of  the  things  practised  under  the  law,  to 
point  out  their  insufficiency  to  purge  the  conscience  ;  and  other  purifi- 
cations are  mentioned  in  other  parts  of  the  epistle.  But  I  observe  not 
this  as  a  controversialist.  In  that  character  I  do  not  give  an  opinion, 
nor  undertake  to  satisfy  an  opponent.  There  may  be  reasons  which  we 
cannot  perceive.  Our  business  is  not  to  account  for  God's  reasons  for 
not  saying  what  he  has  not  said,  but  to  discover  what  he  has  said.  I  act 
on  this  principle  in  every  instance,  as  well  as  in  this.  I  endeavour  to  find 
out  the  meaning  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  the  words  which  he  has  used  ; 
not  by  speculations  and  opinions  with  respect  to  what  he  should  say. 

"  No  man,"  says  Mr.  B.,  "  who  had  not  a  theory  to  support,  could 
bring  himself  to  do  such  violence  to  all  the  laws  of  interpretation  in  a 
case  so  plain."  I  think  I  am  entitled  to  ask,  with  indignation,  the  ground 
on  which  my  antagonist  presumes  to  make  this  assertion.  I  have  no 
theory  to  support.  I  never  use  theories  in  ascertaining  the  truths  and 
the  ordinances  of  Christ ;  I  interpret  by  the  laws  of  language.  Neither 
have  I  any  philological  doctrine  which  demands  my  denial  of  such  a 
secondary  signification  of  this  word.  How  can  I  have  a  theory  to  sup- 
port in  denying  such  a  secondary  meaning,  when  it  is  my  doctrine  that 
words  might  receive  such  secondary  meanings  ?  The  process  by  which, 
in  various  instances,  such  secondary  significations  are  imposed  on  words, 
I  have  exemplified  in  some  of  their  wildest  caprices.  Mr.  B.  himself  is 
in  this  doctrine  merely  my  pupil.  As  far  as  he  is  right,  he  has  adopted 
my  philology ;  and  has  illustrated  it  merely  by  different  examples.  Must 
I,  then,  in  opposing  his  conclusion,  have  a  theory  to  support  in  opposi- 
tion to  my  own  doctrine  ?  Mr.  Bickersteth's  friend,  in  proof  that  the 
word  in  question,  from  signifying  baptism  by  immersion,  came  to  signify 
baptism  in  any  way,  alleged  the  authority  of  my  own  doctrine  against 
myself.  There  was,  however,  a  trifling  deficiency  in  his  reasoning.  He 
proved  from  my  doctrine  that  the  word  might  come  to  have  such  a 
meaning ;  but  he  forgot  to  prove  that  it  actually  underwent  the  supposed 


448  FIRST    REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER. 

process.  Perfectly  on  the  same  principle  Mr.  Beecher  shows,  from  my 
doctrine,  that  the  word  might  come  to  signify  purification ;  but  he  has 
not  proved  that,  in  the  history  of  the  word  before  the  time  of  Christ,  it 
actually  received  such  a  meaning.  The  principle  I  do  not  dispute ;  it 
is  my  own  principle.  What  temptation,  then,  can  I  have,  from  any 
theory  of  mine,  to  dispute  this  secondary  meaning? 

Again,  I  can  have  as  little  temptation  from  interest  or  popularity,  to 
do  violence  to  any  passage  in  order  to  prove  a  particular  mode  of  any 
religious  ordinance.  Have  I  made  a  fortune  by  immersion?  Would 
purifications  destroy  me  ?  Should  I  become  less  popular  among  Chris- 
tians, or  with  the  world,  by  returning  to  sprinkling  1  If  emblematical 
purification  by  sprinkling  or  pouring  were  optional,  as  well  as  by  immer- 
sion, I  would  most  assuredly  never  immerse.  Besides,  why  should  I  do 
violence  to  this  passage,  in  order  to  reject  purification  as  its  meaning, 
when  I  could  admit  this  meaning  here,  and  still,  with  the  utmost  ease, 
prove  immersion  to  be  the  mode  of  Christ's  ordinance  ?  Were  I  ever  so 
partial  to  water,  Mr.  B.'s  good-natured  doctrine  will  indulge  me,  and 
allow  me  to  immerse  as  freely  as  to  sprinkle.  I  can  have  no  possible 
reason,  then,  for  confining  the  word  in  this  passage  to  immersion,  but  the 
innumerable  proofs  that  it  has  this  meaning,  and  the  absence  of  all  proof 
that  it  ever  has  any  other.  I  should  act  perfectly  in  the  same  way,  if 
the  dispute  were  solely  of  a  literary  nature,  and  the  question  were  the 
mode  of  a  heathen  rite. 

But  should  it  be  admitted  that  the  word  here  is  confined  to  persons, 
and  that  it  includes  washings  of  the  person  in  every  mode,  still  this 
would  not  countenance  the  opinion  that  it  signifies  purifications.  All 
ceremonial  washings  were  purifications ;  but  all  purifications  were  not 
washings.     Washings  and  purifications  are  not  synonymous. 

Section  VII. — Mr.  B.  next  presents  us  with  the  usual  objection  from 
Mark  vii.  4,  and  Luke  xi.  38.  "  In  Mark  vii.  4,  8,  and  in  Luke  xi.  38, 
katharizo  is  the  natural  and  obvious  sense  of  baptizo,  and  katharismos 
of  baptismos."  Let  us  hear  the  proof.  "1.  This  sense,"  says  the  writer, 
"  fulfils  perfectly  all  the  exigencies  of  the  passages."  And  if  it  did,  I 
care  not.  Many  a  false  sense  may  fulfil  all  the  exigencies  of  the  con- 
nexion. This  false  sense,  however,  has  not  even  this  merit ;  whereas, 
immersion  is  quite  suitable  to  the  connexion,  and  immersion  is  the  only 
meaning  of  the  word  in  every  instance  in  the  whole  compass  of  the 
language. 

"  I  know,  indeed,"  says  the  writer,  "that  it  is  said  by  some,  that  in 
Mark  there  is  a  rise  in  the  idea  from  the  lesser  washing  of  the  hands, 
which  was  common  before  all  meals,  to  the  greater  washing  implied  in 
the  immersion  of  the  body  after  coming  from  the  market.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  there  is  simply  a  rise  from  the  specific  to  the  general  and 
indefinite.  They  always  wash  their  hands  before  meals ;  and  when  they 
return  from  market  they  also  purify  themselves  (as  the  nature  of  the 
case  may  require)  before  they  eat."  A  rise  from  the  specific  to  the 
general  and  indefinite !  This  indeed  is  a  new  climax.  This  is  Gothic 
rhetoric.   A  rise  from  the  washing  of  the  hands  to  the  immersion  of  the 


FIRST   REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER.  449 

whole  body,  or  the  washing  of  the  body  in  any  mode,  is  a  rise  which  all 
can  understand ;  but  a  rise  from  the  washing  of  the  hands  to  indefinite 
purifications  is  a  fall.  Mr.  B.'s  own  phraseology  is  nonsense :  "  They 
also  purify  themselves."  Does  not  also  imply  that  the  washing  of  the 
hands  is  not  purification  ?  This  is  not  an  advancement  from  a  species  of 
purification  to  purification  in  general,  but  an  advancement  from  what  is 
supposed  not  to  be  purification  to  purification.  But  such  an  advance 
might  be  an  advance  backwards.  The  washing  of  the  hands  is  a  species 
of  purification ;  if  the  advance  is  to  purification  indefinitely,  then  it  may 
be  fulfilled  by  something  less  than  washing  the  hands,  by  dipping  the 
finger,  for  instance,  or  by  touching  the  body  on  any  part  with  a  drop  of 
water,  or  even  without  water,  with  blood,  &c. 

If  any  reader  has  a  conscience  at  all,  I  ask  nothing  more  than  com- 
mon sense  in  him,  to  perceive  in  this  passage,  that  the  persons  referred 
to  usually  washed  their  hands  before  eating;  and  that  when  they  came 
from  the  market  they  did  something  more  than  this.  What  that  some- 
thing more  was,  depends  on  the  meaning  of  the  word.  "  In  the  latter 
case,"  says  Mr.  B.,  "Mr.  Bloomfield  remarks,  it  denotes  a  washing  of  the 
body,  but  not  an  immersion."  Now,  as  far  as  the  passage  itself  is  con- 
cerned, it  is  fully  admitted  that  it  does  not  determine ;  and  the  climax 
would  be  the  same  to  Mr.  Bloomfield  as  to  me.  But  I  determine  the 
meaning  of  the  word  here,  by  its  meaning  as  established  by  the  use  of 
language :  I  never  press  an  argument  a  hair's  breadth  farther  than  it 
can  go.  I  tell  Mr.  Bloomfield  that  the  word  never  signifies  to  tvasli,  as 
I  tell  Mr.  Beecher  that  it  never  signifies  to  purify.  My  authority  is  the 
practice  of  the  Greek  language. 

But  why  does  Mr.  Beecher  appeal  to  Mr.  Bloomfield  ?  Mr.  Bloom- 
field is  as  much  opposed  to  him  as  he  is  to  me.  If  the  word  here 
signifies  to  wash  the  body,  then  it  does  not  here  signify  to  purify  in 
general.  Mr.  B.'s  artifice  is  just  that  of  the  Socinians,  when  they  ex- 
plain the  words  "  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am,"  in  the  sense  of  the  Arians. 
It  is  a  dishonest  and  uncandid  way  of  escaping.  He  does  what  he  is 
able  to  make  it  purify ;  but  as  he  cannot  make  it  purify,  even  to  his  own 
satisfaction,  he  will  give  it  over  to  Mr.  Bloomfield  for  washing  the  body 
without  immersion.  This  is  not  my  way  of  handling  the  word  of  God. 
Purification,  then,  cannot  be  the  meaning  of  the  word  here,  because  it 
is  not  suitable  to  the  phraseology  in  which  it  is  employed.  But  let  it  be 
observed  that  this  is  more  than  I  am  bound  to  show.  Were  it  suitable 
to  the  context,  I  would  equally  reject  it.  I  dismiss  it  on  the  grotind  of 
want  of  a  title  from  the  use  of  the  language.  I  am  not  here  grounding 
a  proof,  but  obviating  an  objection.  It  is  quite  sufficient  that  I  can 
show  that  the  meaning  which  I  assign  to  the  word  is  suitable  to  the 
passage :  I  am  not  bound  to  show  that  either  wash  or  purify  is  unsuit- 
able. The  title  of  my  client  to  the  whole  estate  is  already  in  evidence : 
my  opponents  must  show  that  some  part  of  it  has  been  alienated.  This 
passage  will  not  prove  such  alienation. 

Mr.  B.'s  second  proof  is,  "  Nothing  in  the  context  demands  the  sense 
immerse,  and  powerful  reasons  forbid  it.  All  must  confess  that  purifi- 
cation is  the  only  idea  involved  in  the  subject  of  thought.    Now  it  is  no 

57 


450  FIRST    REPLY   TO   PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

more  likely  that  a  want  of  immersion  offended  the  Pharisee,  Luke  xi.  38, 
in  the  case  of  Christ,  than  it  is  that  this  was  the  ground  of  offence  in 
the  case  of  the  disciples,  Mark  vii.  It  does  not  appear  that  Christ  had 
been  to  the  market ;  nor  is  it  likely  at  all  that  an  immersion  was  ex- 
pected, as  a  matter  of  course,  before  every  meal,  even  on  coming  from 
a  crowd.  The  offence  in  the  case  of  the  disciples  was,  that  they  had 
not  washed  their  hands.  An  immersion  was  not  expected  of  them, 
though  they  had  been  in  crowds.  Why  should  it  be  of  Christ?"  It  is 
not  necessary  that  the  context  should  demand  the  true  meaning  of  a 
word ;  it  is  enough  that  the  context  does  not  forbid  it.  The  usage  of 
the  language  demands  this  meaning  without  any  additional  demand  from 
the  context.  The  context,  however,  forbids  purification,  though  this  is 
not  necessary  to  me.  The  reasons  alleged,  as  forbidding  it  to  signify 
immersion,  have  no  force.  Might  not  the  Pharisees  expect  more  sanctity 
in  the  Messiah  than  in  his  disciples,  or  than  even  they  themselves  pro- 
fessed ?  But  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  conjectures.  Whatever  might 
be  their  reasons,  they  did  expect  that  Christ  would  have  immersed 
before  eating.  To  deny  this  is  to  give  the  lie  to  the  inspired  narrator. 
The  word  used  by  the  Holy  Spirit  signifies  immersion,  and  immersion 
only.  A  thousand  reasons  might  influence  the  Pharisees  in  the  expecta- 
tion referred  to,  which  may  not  be  at  all  known  to  us.  To  know  their 
reasons  is  not  at  all  necessary  to  the  knowing  of  the  meaning  of  the 
word.  Mr.  B.  rests  this  argument  on  a  false  principle  of  interpretation, 
namely,  that  to  know  that  a  word  is  used  in  its  established  meaning,  it 
is  necessary  to  know  that  there  are  sufficient  reasons  to  warrant  its  truth 
in  such  an  application.  This  we  are  to  take  on  the  authority  of  the 
narrator.  His  meaning  we  are  to  know  from  his  words,  and  his  veracity 
we  must  rest  on  his  character. 

"  Rosenmiiller,  on  this  passage,"  says  Mr.  B.,  "  well  remarks,  that  the 
existence  of  any  such  custom  of  regular  immersion  before  all  meals, 
cannot  be  proved."  This  is  another  false  first  principle.  What  makes 
it  necessary  that  a  practice  should  be  proved  by  foreign  evidence,  before 
the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  received  in  its  proper  meaning  ?  Is 
every  thing  recorded  in  Scripture  to  be  denied,  except  it  is  proved  by 
history  ?  Am  I  to  suspend  my  faith  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  till 
I  find  it  proved  by  uninspired  records.  This  is  a  Neological  canon, 
well  worthy  of  its  author.  It  tends  to  sap  the  very  foundations  of 
Christianity.  Is  not  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  of  God  sufficient  to 
prove  this  fact?  And  what  word  could  he  have  used  more  decisively 
to  assert  immersion?  The  custom  referred  to  as  regards  immersion 
after  market,  rests  on  the  evidence  of  inspired  history.  Is  not  this  as 
valid  as  the  testimony  of  uninspired  historians  ? 

"  But  above  all,"  says  Mr.  B.,  "  the  immersion  of  the  couches  on 
which  they  reclined  at  meals  is  out  of  the  question."  I  most  freely 
admit  that  the  word  ought  to  be  translated  couches,  and  not  tables.  It 
designates  not  only  the  couches  on  which  they  reclined  at  table,  but  even 
the  beds  on  which  they  reposed  at  night.  It  applies  also  to  the  litters 
on  which  persons  of  distinction  were  carried  on  the  shoulders  of  men. 
I  will  never  hesitate  to  recognise  anything  in  evidence,  whatever  bearing 


FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  451 

it  may  have  on  my  views.  "  Mr.  Carson,"  says  my  antagonist,  "  seems 
to  feel  this  point  keenly,  and  yet  manfully  maintains  his  ground."  Mr. 
Carson  does  indeed  feel  with  regard  to  this  objection  something  that  he 
does  not  wish  to  express.  But  he  ean  assure  President  Beecher  that  he 
never  felt  it  as  a  difficulty :  in  the  strongest  light  in  which  it  can  be 
viewed,  it  is  futile.  There  is  no  furniture  in  a  house  that  could  not  be 
immersed.  I  have  said  that  the  couches  might  have  been  made  to  be 
taken  to  pieces,  in  order  to  their  more  convenient  immersion ;  and  were 
this  necessary,  it  is  a  valid  solution.  The  supposition  is  perfectly  allow- 
able. The  couch  on  which  rested  the  urn  containing  the  ashes  of  Cyrus, 
is  said  by  Arrian,  p.  144,  to  have  had  feet  of  solid  gold ;  and  those  on 
either  side  of  the  throne  of  Alexander,  for  his  friends  to  sit  on,  had  feet 
of  silver,  p.  165.  Now  what  could  be  more  easy  than  to  have  the  feet 
of  the  couch,  of  whatever  materials  composed,  to  be  taken  out  at  pleasure 
for  the  purpose  of  immersion  1  The  immersion  of  the  couches  would  be 
a  thing  of  little  trouble.  But  I  care  not  that  they  were  baptized  all  of  a 
piece :  the  thing  could  be  very  easily  accomplished.  Ingenuity  is  very 
idly  expended  in  making  will-worship  easy  to  superstition.  The  couches 
were  immersed,  because  the  word  which  is  employed  to  express  the 
operation  has  this  signification,  and  no  other. 

Mr.  B.,  throughout  his  whole  work,  mistakes  my  doctrine  as  to  a  pos- 
sible sense  of  a  word ;  and  labours  under  a  fundamental  error  as  to  the 
difference  of  founding  an  argument  on  any  passage,  and  answering  an 
objection  from  it.  When  we  found  an  argument  on  any  passage,  we 
must  prove  that  the  passage  has  our  meaning,  and  no  other :  for  if  this 
is  not  proved,  the  argument  can  have  no  weight.  But  when  we  answer 
an  objection  from  any  passage,  it  is  sufficient  that  a  particular  word  may 
have  the  sense  for  which  we  contend ;  because,  if  it  may  have  such  a 
sense,  the  objection  which  supposes  that  it  has  not  this  sense,  but  another 
sense,  is  unfounded.  It  is  a  contradiction  to  say  that  a  word  may  have 
such  a  sense  in  such  a  place,  yet  that  it  cannot  have  this  sense.  If,  then, 
the  answer  to  the  objection  is  possible,  it  is  valid.  Were  not  this  so, 
Christianity  itself  could  not  withstand  the  attacks  of  the  infidel.  Many 
objections  must  be  answered  by  the  authority  of  merely  possible  solu- 
tions. This  is  what  I  mean  by  a  possible  sense.  I  never  extend  this  to 
cases  in  which  I  found  an  argument :  I  confine  it  resolutely  to  cases  in 
which  I  answer  objections.  With  respect  to  the  passage  now  under  dis- 
cussion, Mr.  B.  is  bound  to  proof;  because  on  this  he  founds  proof  that 
the  word  in  question  signifies  to  purify.  I  stand  only  on  the  defence ; 
for  I  do  not  allege  the  passage  as  proof,  but  repel  the  objection  which 
pretends  that  the  passage  is  irreconcilable  with  immersion.  In  this  point 
my  antagonist  proves  himself  ignorant  of  one  of  the  fundamental  laws 
of  controversy.  He  demands  proof  from  me,  when  he  himself  is  bound 
to  prove.  He  asks,  "  What  has  Mr.  Carson  proved  ?  Why,  truly,  that 
in  other  instances  baptizo  means  immerse.  But  does  this  prove  that  it 
means  it  here'?"  Could  any  man  who  understands  the  seif-evident  laws 
of  controversy,  look  for  proof  on  my  part  from  this  passage  1  Is  it  not 
enough  for  me  to  show  that  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  the  word  from 
having  its  established  meaning  in  this  passage  ?     If  this  is  possible,  his 


452  FIRST    REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

objection  is  removed.  My  antagonist  is  bound  from  this  passage  to  show 
that  the  word  signifies  to  purify.  How  can  he  do  this,  if  he  has  not 
proved  the  word  to  have  that  signification  in  any  other  place;  and  if 
even  in  this  it  may  have  its  usual  meaning?  If,  as  he  admits,  I  have 
found  that  baptizo  in  other  instances  signifies  to  immerse,  there  is  a  cer- 
tainty that  it  has  this  meaning  here,  except  it  is  proved  that  it  has 
another  signification  somewhere  else.  If  another  signification  is  found, 
I  will  not  insist  that  immersion  must  of  course  be  the  signification  here. 
In  such  a  case  as  this,  the  meaning  must  be  settled  by  additional  evi- 
dence. When  a  word  has  two  or  more  meanings,  actually  in  proof, 
which  of  them  may  in  any  passage  be  the  true  meaning,  is  a  question ; 
but  if  no  secondary  meaning  is  in  proof,  there  can  be  no  question  on  the 
subject.  Now  there  is  not  in  all  Greek  literature  a  single  instance,  ever 
alleged,  in  which  this  word  must  have  a  secondary  meaning. 

Mr.  B.  admits  that  I  have  proved  that  the  word  signifies  immersion 
in  other  places;  but  asks,  "Does  this  prove  that  it  means  so  here?"  I 
answer  most  decidedly  that  it  does  prove  this,  if  the  word  is  not  proved 
to  have  another  meaning.  If  but  one  instance  prove  a  word  to  have  a 
certain  meaning,  it  is  proof  that  every  other  instance  has  the  same 
meaning,  except  a  secondary  meaning  is  proved.  If  a  secondary  mean- 
ing is  proved,  then  the  claimants  must  rest  their  suit  on  their  respective 
peculiar  resources. 

"  The  probability,"  says  Mr.  B.,  "  is  all  the  other  way."  Here  there 
is  a  want  of  discrimination  and  a  confounding  of  things  that  differ.  I 
am  not  speaking  of  what  is  possible,  probable,  or  certain,  independently 
of  the  testimony ;  I  am  speaking  of  the  testimony  of  the  word  known 
by  its  use ;  I  am  saying  that  a  word  in  a  certain  place  must  have  the 
meaning  which  it  is  found  to  have  in  other  places,  when  no  secondary 
meaning  has  ever  been  proved.  Mr.  B.  alleges  not  the  testimony  of  the 
word,  but  imposes  a  testimony  on  the  word.  He  forces  it  to  take  a 
meaning  which  use  has  never  given  it,  on  the  authority  of  what  he 
thinks  probable,  utterly  independent  of  the  authority  of  the  word.  He 
tampers  with  the  witness,  and  tells  him  what  he  must  say.  I  allow 
witness  to  tell  his  own  story,  and  believe  him  implicitly  on  his  own 
authority,  without  regard  to  what  I  might  think  independently  probable. 
Mr.  B.'s  conduct  is  just  the  same  with  that  of  a  jury  who,  having  heard 
the  testimony  of  a  number  of  competent  eye-witnesses,  with  regard  to  the 
way  in  which  a  man  was  killed,  decide  in  opposition  to  their  evidence, 
on  the  authority  of  the  conjectures  of  a  surgeon.  This  word  declares 
that  couches  were  purified  by  immersion.  Mr.  B.,  on  the  authority  of 
what  he  thinks  probable,  declares  that  it  was  not  by  immersion.  He 
dictates  to  the  word  what  it  must  say,  instead  of  receiving  its  testimony. 
On  the  contrary,  my  decision  is,  that  the  way  in  which  the  couches 
were  purified,  is  to  be  known  from  the  testimony  of  the  word,  and  not 
from  what,  independently  of  that  testimony,  is  probable;  and  that 
from  this  testimony  they  were  immersed,  because  the  word  has  no  other 
meaning. 

"  Hence,"  says  Mr.  B.,  "  the  demand  to  prove  an  impossibility  of 
immersion  is  altogether  unreasonable."    If  a  secondary  meaning  had 


FIRST    REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER.  453 

been  proved  from  use,  then,  in  any  instance  to  demand  an  impossibility 
of  the  primary  meaning,  before  the  secondary  is  admitted,  would  be  un- 
reasonable. But  is  it  unreasonable  that  a  word  should  be  understood 
in  this  passage  as  it  is  proved  to  signify  in  other  passages,  when  no 
secondary  signification  has  ever  been  proved  ?  Instead  of  being  unrea- 
sonable, the  demand  is  founded  on  self-evident  truth.  Why  should  the 
word  have  a  meaning  here,  which  it  is  not  proved  to  have  in  use,  when 
its  own  established  meaning  will  serve  ?  How  can  a  meaning  which  is 
not  known  to  exist,  dispute  with  the  only  established  meaning  ?  Views 
of  probability,  independently  of  the  testimony  of  the  word,  are  not  a 
competent  witness ;  for  they  are  often  mistaken.  What  we  might,  pre- 
viously to  the  hearing  of  evidence,  judge  probable,  might,  on  the  hear- 
ing of  evidence,  be  proved  most  satisfactorily  to  be  false.  The  meaning 
of  this  word  must  be  known  from  its  use — not  from  views  of  probability 
independently  of  this  use.  When  we  hear  that  a  certain  person  has 
killed  another,  we  may  think  the  thing  very  improbable ;  but  shall  we 
on  that  ground  assert  that  kill  does  not  signify  to  take  away  life  ?  In 
fact,  to  allege  that  the  couches  were  not  immersed,  is  not  to  decide  on 
the  authority  of  the  word  used,  but  in  opposition  to  this  authority ;  to 
give  the  lie  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Inspiration  employs  a  word  to  designate 
the  purification  of  the  couches,  which  never  signifies  anything  but  im- 
merse. If  they  were  not  immersed,  the  historian  is  a  false  witness.  This 
way  of  conferring  meanings  on  words  is  grounded  on  infidelity.  It  dic- 
tates to  inspiration  instead  of  interpreting  its  language.  It  would  be 
improper  in  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  words  even  in  a  profane  histo- 
rian. Are  we  to  deny  the  meaning  of  words  established  by  use,  as  often 
as,  independently  of  the  testimony  of  the  words,  we  may  think  a  thing 
improbable  1  This  would  destroy  the  faith  of  history  :  it  would  destroy 
every  doctrine  of  Scripture.  This  is  a  usual  way  with  some  in  inter- 
preting the  Bible ;  but  is  not  the  way  that  any  interpret  the  language  of 
the  profane  historian.  When  the  profane  historian  narrates  what  is 
thought  improbable,  his  veracity  is  questioned,  but  his  words  are  not 
tampered  with.  When  the  Holy  Spirit  employs  words  whose  meanings 
are  not  relished,  critics  do  not  say  that  he  lies,  but  they  say  what  is  equal 
to  this,  that  his  words  mean  what  they  cannot  mean.  If  a  word  may 
have  in  any  instance  its  established  meaning,  when  it  cannot  be  proved 
in  any  instance  to  have  another  meaning,  it  cannot  be  probable  that  it 
has  in  that  instance  a  meaning  which  it  cannot  be  proved  to  have  any- 
where else.     Surely  this  is  self-evident. 

"And  it  is,"  continues  my  antagonist,  "  against  his  own  practice  in 
other  cases.  Does  he  not  admit  that  bapto  means  to  dye,  or  colour, 
when  it  is  applied  to  the  beard  and  hair?"  Here  I  am  caught  at  last: 
surely  my  feet  are  entangled  in  my  own  net.  But  let  the  reader  see  with 
what  ease  I  can  extricate  myself.  The  assertion  of  my  antagonist  arises 
from  his  want  of  discrimination.  I  admit  that  bapto  has  a  secondary  sig- 
nification, because  such  secondary  signification  is  in  proof,  and  instances 
may  be  alleged  in  which  its  primary  meaning  is  utterly  impossible. 
When  applied,  for  instance,  to  the  lake,  the  immersion  of  a  lake  in  the 
blood  of  a  frog,  is  beyond  the  bounds  of  possibility.     Show  me  anything 


454  FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

like  this  with  respect  to  baptizo,  and  I  will  grant  a  secondary  meaning  ; 
and  as  soon  as  a  secondary  meaning  is  ascertained  on  sufficient  grounds, 
I  do  not  demand  in  every  instance  a  proof  of  impossibility  of  primary 
meaning  before  the  secondary  is  alleged.  The  competition  between  the 
rival  meanings  must  then  be  determined  on  other  grounds.  This  law  i 
apply,  not  to  baptizo  only,  but  to  every  word  of  every  language.  The 
immersion  of  the  couches,  in  no  light  in  which  it  can  be  viewed,  has 
the  smallest  difficulty.  From  an  excess  of  good  nature  I  made  faith 
easy  to  the  weak,  by  fixing  the  couches  so  as  readily  to  be  taken  to 
pieces ;  but  if  obstinacy  will  not  avail  itself  of  this  help,  I  will  force  it 
to  carry  the  couches  to  water  wherever  it  may  be  found. 

"  The  fact  is,"  says  Mr.  B.,  "  that  the  whole  reasoning  against  the 
sense  claimed  for  baptizo  in  these  passages,  rests  on  false  principles." 
False  principles !  What  now  are  our  false  principles  ?  Is  it  a  false  prin- 
ciple to  rest  on  the  ascertained  meaning  of  a  word,  and  not  on  probabili- 
ties independently  of  the  word  ?  Is  it  a  false  principle  to  refuse  a  word 
a  meaning  in  a  disputed  passage,,  till  it  proves  itself  to  have  such  mean- 
ing in  an  undisputed  passage  ? 

"  It  assumes,"  says  my  antagonist,  "  a  violent  improbability  of  the 
meaning  in  question,  and  resorts  to  all  manner  of  shifts  to  prove  the  pos- 
sibility of  immersion,  as  though  that  were  all  that  the  case  required." 
What  shall  I  say  of  this?  Is  it  calumny,  or  is  it  want  of  perspicacity? 
Assume!  I  assume  nothing,  Mr.  President  Beecher,  but  self-evident  truth. 
My  reasoning  does  not  at  all  rest  on  assumptions.  The  meaning  which 
you  assign  to  the  word,  I  reject,  because  it  wants  evidence,  not  on  any 
assumption  of  its  violent  improbability.  All  manner  of  shifts !  I  repel 
the  charge  with  indignation.  I  never  used  a  shift  in  all  the  controversy 
I  ever  wrote.  Does  it  require  a  shift  to  prove  that  in  all  the  cases 
referred  to,  immersion  was  possible?  Will  any  man  of  common  sense 
question  the  possibility  ?  If  the  possibility  is  unquestionable,  why  shall 
I  be  supposed  to  employ  all  manner  of  shifts  to  prove  it  ? 

But  my  opponent  asserts  also  that  I  consider  that  the  possibility  of 
immersion  in  the  cases  referred  to,  is  all  that  is  required  to  prove  it.  Is 
this  a  shift?  It  is  worse  than  a  shift:  it  is  not  a  fact.  The  proof  that 
immersion  was  used  in  the  cases  referred  to,  is  that  the  word  has  this 
meaning,  and  no  other.  The  possibility  of  immersion  only  removes 
objection.  But  for  argument's  sake,  I  will  for  a  moment  admit  that  im- 
mersion was  in  these  cases  impossible :  even  then  I  will  deny  the  title  of 
purification.  Washing  is  a  meaning  which  would  come  previously  to 
purifying.  These  passages,  then,  cannot  in  any  view,  ground  the  title 
of  purification. 

Section  VIII. — His  next  argument,  Mr.  Beecher  grounds  on  a  pas- 
sage in  Ecclesiasticus.  "  In  the  case,"  says  he,  "  so  often  quoted  from 
Sirach  xxxiv.  25,  baptizo  requires  the  sense  katharizo.  The  passage  is 
this  :  Haptizomcnos  apo  nekrou  Jcai  palin  aptomenos  autou  ti  ophelese  to 
loutro  autou.  •  He  that  is  cleansed  from  a  dead  body,  and  again  touches 
it,  of  what  profit  to  him  is  his  cleansing?'  "  No  such  thing  is  required 
But  let  us  hear  his  proof. 

"  1.  The  sense,  katharizo,  purify,"  says  he,  "suits  the  preposition 


FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  455 

apo ; — immerse  does  not."  The  preposition,  I  assert,  equally  suits  im- 
mersion. Immersed  from  a  dead  body,  is  an  elliptical  expression,  for 
immersed  to  purify  from  the  pollution  contracted  by  the  touch  of  a  dead 
body.  And  on  this  principle  it  is  translated  into  English,  in  the  com- 
mon version,  though  the  translators  were  not  immersers.  "  He  that 
washeth  himself  after  the  touching  of  a  dead  body,  if  he  touch  it  again, 
what  availeth  his  washing  ?"  But  it  is  strange  beyond  measure  that 
President  Beecher  did  not  perceive  that  even  if  the  word  purify  itself 
had  been  here  used,  there  would  have  been  a  similar  ellipsis.  To  purify 
from  a  dead  body,  is  to  purify  from  the  pollution  contracted  by  touching 
a  dead  body.     This  is  school-boy  criticism,  Mr.  President. 

His  second  observation  on  this  example  is :  "  No  immersion,  in  the 
case  of  touching  a  dead  body,  was  enjoined,  but  simply  a  washing  of  the 
body."  It  is  not  necessary  that  an  immersion  should  be  enjoined :  it  is 
quite  sufficient  that  the  injunction  of  washing  the  body  was  usually  per- 
formed by  immersion.  The  writer  is  alluding  to  practice,  and  is  not 
relating  the  words  of  the  injunction. 

Mr.  B.'s  third  observation  on  this  passage  is,  that  "  the  rite  of  purifi- 
cation from  a  dead  body  was  complex,  and  no  import  of  the  word  baptizo, 
but  the  one  claimed,  is  adapted  to  include  the  whole."  The  writer  is 
not  describing  the  whole  process  of  the  rite  of  purification  according  to 
the  law  of  Moses.  Why,  then,  should  the  word  include  the  whole? 
He  is  referring  to  a  part  of  that  rite  merely  as  an  illustration  of  another 
subject.  Priests  were  anointed  to  their  office,  but  there  were  other 
things  included  in  the  rite  of  inauguration,  besides  anointing.  Might  it 
not  be  said,  "  If  a  priest  is  anointed,  and  afterwards  render  himself  unfit 
for  his  office,  of  what  avail  is  his  anointing?"  The  washing  completed 
the  process  of  purification.  Another  touch  of  a  dead  body  defiled  again, 
and  rendered  the  washing,  consequently  the  whole  process,  useless. 

But  in  the  word  lontron  there  is  the  most  decisive  evidence  that  the 
whole  process  of  purification  is  not  included  in  baptizo.  The  word 
loutron  here  refers  to  the  thing  done  to  the  person  by  his  baptism.  But 
loutron  cannot  refer  to  purification  in  general,  but  only  to  washing.  It 
cannot  include  the  sprinkling  of  the  water  of  separation.  This  is  puri- 
fication, but  not  washing. 

On  this  view,  Mr.  B.  asks :  "  How  then  is  it  consistent  to  apply  it  to 
the  blood  of  Christ,  which  is  spoken  of  as  the  blood  of  sprinkling?" 
This  to  Mr.  B.  appears  an  unanswerable  question :  to  me  it  has  not  the 
smallest  difficulty.  We  are  said  to  be  icashcd  in  the  blood  of  Christ, 
and  we  are  said  to  be  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of  Christ.  But  the 
washing  and  the  sprinkling- are  never  confounded;  we  are  not  said  to 
be  washed  by  being  sprinkled,  nor  is  sprinkling  called  washing.  These 
two  forms  of  speech  refer  to  the  application  of  the  blood  of  Christ  under 
figures  entirely  different.  When  Christ's  blood  is  said  to  be  sprinkled 
on  us,  there  is  an  allusion  to  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  under  the 
law ;  when  we  are  said  to  be  washed  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  there  is  an 
allusion  to  the  washing  under  the  law.  Does  not  Mr.  B.  know  what 
a  difference  there  is  between  a  mixture  of  metaphors,  and  a  succession 
of  distinct  metaphors?     Careless  readers  will  imagine  that  there  is 


456  FIRST    REPLY   TO   PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

wonderful  acuteness  in  Mr.  B.'s  observations.  But  the  eye  of  the  philo- 
sopher will  perceive  that  they  are  subtle  without  discrimination.  A 
little  more  perspicacity  would  have  saved  him  from  undertaking  the 
impracticable  task  of  proving  baptism  to  mean  purification. 

But  were  we  to  grant  that  the  word  here  signifies  purification,  this 
would  not  be  proof  that  it  has  this  signification  in  the  rite  of  Christian 
baptism.  It  would  give  ground  to  send  the  case  to  the  jury ;  but  would 
not  decide  the  controversy.  Still  we  would  most  satisfactorily  prove 
that  baptism  must  be  by  immersion. 

"  The  case  of  Judith,  also,"  Mr.  B.  alleges,  "  sustains  the  same  view." 
But  what  appearance  of  difficulty  does  this  occurrence  of  the  word  pre- 
sent ?  Is  it  a  thing  impossible,  or  even  difficult,  to  be  immersed  near 
a  fountain  ?  Might  she  not  have  had  attendants  with  her  to  provide 
her  with  a  bath  at  the  fountain,  had  this  been  necessary  ?  From  the 
civilities  and  attentions  of  the  governor,  could  she  be  supposed  to  want 
anything  that  would  not  be  most  cheerfully  supplied?  Was  it  not  usual 
to  have  stone  troughs  at  fountains,  for  the  purpose  of  watering  cattle? 
"  Haynes  informs  us,"  says  Mr.  Whitecross,  in  his  Anecdotes  Illustra- 
tive of  Scripture,  "  that  having  arrived  at  Nazareth,  at  the  end  of  De- 
cember, about  five  in  the  evening,  upon  entering  the  town,  he  and  his 
party  saw  two  women  filling  their  pitchers  with  water  at  a  fountain  he 
had  described,  and  about  twelve  others  waiting  for  the  same  purpose, 
whom  they  desired  to  pour  some  into  a  trough  which  stood  by,  that 
their  horses  might  drink ;  they  had  no  sooner  made  the  request  than  the 
women  complied,  and  filled  the  trough,  and  the  others  waited  with  the 
greatest  patience."  p.  83.  Yes,  but  Mr.  B.  will  say,  Mr.  Carson  has 
not  proved  that  there  was  such  a  trough  at  this  fountain.  Mr.  Carson 
will  reply,  This  is  not  necessary,  Mr.  President ;  it  is  sufficient  for  my 
purpose,  if  it  may  have  been  so.  I  am  answering  an  objection,  and  if 
the  thing  might  be  as  I  suppose,  the  objection  is  invalid. 

But  what  should  prevent  her  from  bathing  in  the  fountain,  even  if  we 
were  assured  that  there  was  no  other  way  of  bathing?  This  is  quite 
usual  to  superstition.  Charlotte  Elizabeth,  speaking  of  a  holy  well  at 
the  top  of  Slieve  Donard,  a  lofty  mountain  in  Ireland,  says,  "  Many  a 
diseased  creature  had  dragged  his  feeble,  perhaps  crippled  limbs  and 
exhausted  frame,  to  the  top  of  Slieve  Donard,  to  plunge  them  in  the  so- 
called  holy  well,  hoping  to  find  a  healing  power  in  its  spring :"  shall  less 
be  expected  from  Jewish  superstition?  In  fact,  the  English  version, 
which  was  not  made  by  immersers,  actually  translates  the  passage, 
"  and  washed  herself  in  a  fountain  of  water  by  the  camp."  Judith  xii.  7. 
It  is  true  that  the  exact  rendering  is,  immersed  herself  at  a  fountain,  not 
in  a  fountain.  The  immersion  is  proved  not  by  the  preposition,  but  by 
the  verb ;  and  though  at  a  fountain  does  not  signify  in  a  fountain,  yet 
it  is  consistent  with  it.  A  person  may  be  said  to  be  immersed  at  a 
fountain,  when  he  is  immersed  in  it.  A  person  coming  from  Palestine 
may  say,  I  was  baptized  at  the  Jordan,  when  he  was  immersed  in  it. 

I  have  said  all  this,  however,  only  to  put  obstinacy  to  the  blush,  and 
overwhelm  it  with  confusion.  Not  a  word  of  it  is  essentially  necessary. 
Had  Judith  been  most  rigorously  treated,  and  confined  to  her  tent,  when 


FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT   fcEECHER.  457 

she  is  said  to  be  baptized  for  purification,  I  will  make  the  word  find  her 
water.  Can  anything  be  more  unreasonable  than  for  persons  at  the  end 
of  thousands  of  years,  to  allege  difficulties  as  in  certain  cases  insupera- 
ble ?  Could  not  innumerable  circumstances  render  a  thing  practicable, 
which  to  us  are  now  unknown  ? 

"We  are  told,"  says  Mr.  B.,  "of  her  courage,  and  faith,  and  of  pos- 
sible bathing  places  near  the  spring,  and  all  for  what?  To  avoid  so 
obvious  a  conclusion  as  that  the  writer  merely  means  to  say,  that  she 
purified  or  washed  herself,  without  reference  to  the  mode."  To  avoid 
such  a  conclusion,  it  is  not  necessary  to  allege  any  of  the  things  men- 
tioned. The  immersion  would  be  secured  by  the  word,  though  he  could 
see  no  way  of  its  accomplishment.  It  is  enough  that  nothing  is  seen  to 
render  it  impossible.  When  we  take  the  trouble  of  showing  how  the 
immersion  might  be  accomplished,  it  is  a  work  of  supererogation.  How 
is  the  conclusion  obvious  that  the  historian  means  only  that  she  purified 
or  washed  herself,  without  reference  to  mode,  when  the  word  that  he 
employs  designates  mode  in  the  most  decisive  manner  ?  What  is  the 
ground  of  the  supposed  obvious  conclusion  ?  Is  it  that  it  would  have 
been  sufficient  to  tell  us  that  she  washed  or  purified  herself,  without 
telling  us  the  mode  ?  This  is  no  ground  for  such  a  conclusion ;  this 
does  not  imply  that  she  did  not  purify  in  the  mode  of  immersion,  or  that 
the  historian  should  not  mention  the  mode  employed.  But  can  anything 
be  sufficient  ground  for  a  conclusion  as  to  this  point,  but  the  import  of 
the  word  itself?  How  do  we  conclude  that  she  purified  herself  at  all  ? 
Is  it  not  from  the  word  used  by  the  historian  ?  Ought  we  not,  then,  to 
ground  our  conclusion,  as  to  the  mode  of  that  purification,  on  the  same 
word,  and  not  on  independent  probability  ?  We  have  no  testimony  on 
the  subject,  but  that  contained  in  the  word  baptizo,  and  that  testimony 
asserts  immersion.  How  can  it  be  concluded  that  the  historian  speaks 
of  purification  without  expressing  mode,  when  he  employs  the  word  that 
most  definitely  expresses  mode? 

"What  reason  is  there,"  says  Mr.  B.,  "for  all  this?"  Astonishing 
demand !  What  reason  is  there  for  giving  a  word  the  only  meaning  it  is 
known  to  possess !  When  a  person  says,  1  dipped  my self  in  the  river,  shall 
we  say, "  what  reason  is  there  to  suppose  that  the  word  dip  here  signifies 
to  immerse  ?  Is  it  not  here  intended  to  tell  us  that  he  bathed  himself? 
What  reason,  then,  is  there  to  suppose  that  dip  does  not  signify  to  bathe, 
without  reference  to  mode?"  Our  reason  for  believing  that  Judith  was 
immersed  is,  that  the  historian  tells  us  that  she  was  immersed.  Is  not 
this  a  sufficient  reason? 

"  Is  not  the  sense  purify,"  continues  Mr.  B.,  "  a  priori  probable  ?" 
Whether  in  giving  an  account  of  the  performance  of  a  rite  of  purifica- 
tion, a  writer  will  mention  the  process  in  the  rite  to  be  performed  with- 
out specification,  cannot  be  previously  known  :  it  must  be  learned  from 
the  words  of  the  narrative.  That  Mr.  President  Beecher  will  be  im- 
mersed in  one  of  the  great  American  rivers,  is  now  very  improbable ; 
but  should  I  ever  read  that,  in  obedience  to  Christ,  he  was  immersed, 
I  certainly  will  not  attempt  to  discredit  the  account  by  alleging  that 
immerse  does  not  here  signify  to  dip. 

5S 


458  FIRST    REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

"  Does  it  not,"  continues  Mr.  B., "  fulfil  all  the  exigencies  of  the  case  ?" 
This  is  no  criterion.  A  word  might  fulfil  all  the  exigencies  of  the  case, 
and  yet  another  word,  either  more  general  or  more  specific,  might  be 
used.  When  a  person  says,  I  dipped  myself  in  the  river,  either  washed 
or  bathed  would  fulfil  all  the  exigencies  of  the  case.  Does  this  prove 
that  dip  signifies  to  ivash  or  bathe  without  referring  to  mode? 

"Was  it  of  any  importance,"  says  Mr.  B.,  "to  specify  the  mode?"  If 
it  is  truth,  the  importance  is  not  to  be  weighed.  My  last  reply  will  serve 
equally  here.  But  is  it  a  thing  of  no  importance  to  specify  the  mode  in 
which  a  rite  is  performed  ? 

"  Do  the  circumstances  of  the  case,"  continues  my  opponent,  "  call 
for  immersion?"  The  word  calls  for  immersion;  it  is  enough  that  no 
circumstances  forbid  it.  If  this  was  the  usual  mode  of  performing  the 
rite  of  washing  in  purification,  which  is  admitted,  why  is  it  not  demand- 
ed? Such  objections  are  unworthy  of  an  answer.  Suppose  it  is  said 
that  an  army  on  its  march  forded  a  river  near  such  a  place.  Sup- 
pose again  that  I  know  that  in  that  neighbourhood  there  is  a  bridge 
over  the  river ;  is  it  not  probable  that,  if  there  is  a  bridge,  the  army 
will  pass  by  the  bridge?  Am  I  then  to  say,  that  ford  signifies  to  pass 
a  river  by  a  bridge  1  Whitecross  relates  the  following  anecdote  :  "  Very 
near  Columbo  is  a  school  built  in  a  beautiful  and  romantic  situation,  on 
the  high  bank  of  a  noble  river,  across  which  a  bridge  of  boats  had 
recently  been  thrown  for  the  convenience  of  the  public.  A  number  of 
fine  little  boys  residing  on  the  side  of  the  river,  opposite  the  school,  were 
exceedingly  anxious  to  enjoy  the  benefits  of  the  instruction  which  it 
afforded,  but  were  utterly  unable,  from  their  poverty,  to  pay  the  toll  for 
passing  this  bridge  four  times  every  day,  to  and  from  school.  In  remov- 
ing this  serious  difficulty,  the  little  fellows  showed  at  once  their  eager- 
ness to  obtain  instruction,  and  their  native  ingenuity.  Wearing  only 
a  light  cloth  around  them,  according  to  the  custom  of  the  country, 
they  were  accustomed  to  assemble  on  the  bank  in  the  morning,  and 
the  larger  boys  binding  up  the  books  of  the  smaller  ones,  which  they 
had  home  with  them  to  learn  their  tasks,  to  tie  them  on  the  back 
of  their  heads,  and  swim  over,  the  little  ones  following  them ;  and  this 
inconvenience  they  constantly  encountered,  rather  than  be  absent  from 
school." 

Now,  if  instead  of  this  particular  narrative,  which  explains  every  cir- 
cumstance, it  had  been  recorded  only  that  the  boys  passed  the  river 
by  swimming,  while  we  knew  that  a  bridge  of  boats  was  near,  what 
would  be  the  sense  in  which,  according  to  Mr.  B.'s  philology,  a  foreigner 
should  understand  the  language?  "Swim,"  says  the  writer,  "must  un- 
doubtedly be  here  taken  to  signify  to  walk  over  a  bridge  of  boats.  It 
is  true,  in  many  books  in  the  English  language,  the  word  swim  has 
another  meaning,  but  there  is  the  highest  probability  that  it  has  not 
this  signification  here.  Is  it  to  be  believed  that  the  boys  swam,  in 
the  primary  sense  of  the  word,  across  a  great  river,  when  there  was  a 
bridge  at  the  place?  Incredible,  utterly  incredible!  My  opponents, 
it  is  true,  may  plead  the  authority  of  classical  English ;  but  I  rely 
on  Columbine   English.     The  word  swim,  then,  must  here  have  the 


FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  459 

secondary  signification  for  which  I  contend."  Every  child  who  speaks 
English  will  laugh  the  critic  to  scorn ;  but  to  his  own  countrymen,  as 
little  acquainted  with  the  English  language  as  himself,  he  would  appear 
to  be  w  very  profound  philologist.  I  maintain  that  this  is  exactly  Mr. 
B.'s  criticism,  and  that  it  can  satisfy  nothing  but  ignorance. 

Is  it  not  evident,  on  the  face  of  the  document,  that  Judith  went  out 
from  the  camp  to  the  fountain  at  Bethulia  for  the  purpose  of  bathing,  or 
washing  her  whole  person  1  This  the  law  of  purification  required,  and 
no  other  reason  made  it  necessary  for  her  to  go  to  the  fountain.  Even 
then,  supposing  that  it  were  allowed  that  the  word  signifies  to  wash 
without  reference  to  mode,  this  gives  no  countenance  to  Mr.  B.'s  opinion 
that  the  word  signifies  to  purify.  To  wash  and  to  purify  are  not 
identical.  On  this  supposition,  the  passage  would  favour  those  who 
think  that  the  word  signifies  to  wash — not  those  who  think  that  it 
signifies  to  purify. 

Again,  if  the  washing  of  the  person  in  any  manner  was  the  way  in 
which  the  law  was  fulfilled,  why  did  she  go  to  the  fountain '!  Why  did 
she  leave  the  tent  ?  Could  not  a  small  basin  of  water  have  served  the 
purpose  of  successive  washing? 

Again,  even  had  it  been  said  that  she  washed  her  person  at  the  foun- 
tain, was  not  immersion  likely  to  be  the  mode  ?  Is  it  not  the  usual  and 
the  most  convenient  way  of  washing  her  person  ?  Why  then  shall  it  be 
supposed  that  it  was  not  the  mode  employed  here,  even  though  the  word 
of  mode  had  not  been  used  1  But  especially  when  the  word  of  mode  is 
used,  why  should  supposed  difficulties  make  it  incredible  ?  The  alleged 
difficulties,  however,  are  no  difficulties.  Mr.  B.  cannot  find  a  tree  while 
he  is  in  the  forest. 

But  even  were  it  admitted  that  the  word  signifies  purify  in  this  place, 
this  would  not  prove  that  it  has  this  signification  in  the  ordinance  of 
baptism ;  we  could  still  prove  immersion  to  be  the  mode  of  the  Chris- 
tian rite.  Mr.  B.  fails  in  every  thing  which  he  attempts  to  prove ;  yet 
were  he  successful,  it  would  not  prove  his  position. 

Throughout  his  whole  work,  my  antagonist  labours  under  an  essential 
error.  He  reasons  on  the  supposition  that  every  instance  of  the  occur- 
rence of  the  word  must  be  treated  independently  of  its  established 
meaning,  and  its  meaning  assigned  according  to  views  of  probability, 
without  reference  to  testimony.  He  understands  not  the  difference 
between  answering  an  objection  and  founding  an  argument ;  and  calls 
upon  me  for  proof,  when  he  himself  is  bound  to  prove.  In  answering 
objections,  a  merely  possible  supposition  is  as  good  as  demonstration  :  in 
proof,  probability,  even  the  highest  probability,  avails  nothing  against 
testimony.  If  Judith  is  said  to  have  been  baptized,  she  must  have  been 
immersed,  though  a  thousand  difficulties  may  occur  in  providing  the 
water.  My  opponents  are  more  unreasonable  with  me  than  the  Israelites 
were  with  Moses :  they  murmured  when  they  had  no  water.  Must  I 
bring  water  out  of  the  rock,  when  there  is  enough  in  the  fountain? 
Such  a  mode  of  disproving  the  established  meaning  of  a  word,  and  of 
giving  a  new  and  unauthorised  meaning,  I  cannot  dignify  with  any  other 
designation  than  that  of  perverse  cavilling. 


460  FIRST   REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER. 

Mr.  B.  alleges  as  another  argument,  that  "  no  contrary  probability, 
or  usage,  can  be  established  from  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
age,  or  of  the  preceding  age,  who  used  the  Alexandrian  Greek."  With 
probability  we  have  nothing  to  do  in  this  question ;  we  are  inquiring 
about  a  matter  of  fact,  namely,  whether  a  certain  word  had  a  secondary 
meaning.  We  admit  proof  from  writers  of  all  classes  to  the  time  of 
Christ.  Mr.  B.  tells  us  that  to  refute  a  secondary  meaning,  it  is  of  no 
use  to  appeal  to  the  earliest  writers.  This  also  we  admit.  If  in  all  the 
history  of  the  word,  till  its  appropriation  to  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  he 
brings  one  instance  in  which  it  must  have  a  secondary  meaning,  we 
admit  that  a  secondary  meaning  is  fully  proved.  An  example  from 
Alexandrian  Greek  would  prove  the  fact,  though  it  should  not  be  owned 
by  any  writer  of  antiquity.  Is  not  this  admission  sufficiently  liberal  ? 
Candour  requires  no  less :  it  cannot  require  more.  I  have  no  object 
but  truth ;  and  I  am  so  strong  in  truth,  that  I  fearlessly  grant  every 
thing  that  candour  can  demand. 

But  what  does  the  writer  mean  when  he  asserts  that  no  contrary 
usage  can  be  established  from  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  age,  or 
of  the  age  preceding  ?  Does  he  mean  that  during  this  time  the  word  is 
not  used  in  its  primary  sense  ?  If  he  does,  the  assertion  is  palpably 
false.  Does  he  mean  that  during  the  specified  time,  there  are  examples 
of  this  secondary  meaning  ?  Is  not  this  the  very  point  in  dispute  ?  To 
assume  it,  is  to  assume  the  question  at  issue.  There  is  not  one  instance 
to  prove  this. 

Here,  however,  Mr.  B.  labours  under  his  usual  mistake — he  puts 
proof  on  his  opponent,  when  it  lies  upon  himself.  Why  should  we 
prove  a  contrary  usage  in  the  times  of  the  New  Testament,  or  the  pre- 
ceding age?  Does  not  proof  lie  upon  him?  If  I  prove  that  in  its  early 
history  a  word  has  a  certain  meaning,  it  must  in  every  age  be  supposed 
to  have  the  same  meaning,  till  a  contrary  usage  is  proved.  If  the 
possessor  of  an  estate  proves  that  he  has  hitherto  possessed  it  by  a  good 
title,  his  possession  cannot  be  disturbed  till  alienation  is  proved.  It  is 
possible  that  he  may  have  sold  it,  but  this  is  to  be  proved,  not  taken  for 
granted. 

"  I  do  not  deny,"  says  my  antagonist,  "  that  these  writers  do  also  use 
the  word  baptizo  in  other  circumstances,  and  in  a  secular  sense,  to 
denote  immersion,  sinking,  overwhelming,  or  oppression.  But  this  only 
proves  that  the  two  usages  did  co-exist ;  just  as  Mr.  Carson  proves  that 
the  two  usages  of  bapto  did  co-exist  in  Hippocrates,  and  that  the  exist- 
ence of  the  one  did  not  disprove  the  existence  of  the  other." 

But  is  there  not  a  great  difference  between  Mr.  Carson's  proving, 
and  Mr.  Beecher's  asserting,  and  supposing,  and  alleging  probabilities, 
independently  of  the  word?  All  my  opponents  endeavour  to  take 
advantage  of  my  candour  in  proving  the  secondary  meaning  of  bapto, 
taking  it  for  granted  that  this  equally  applies  to  baptizo.  Let  baptizo 
show  as  good  evidence  of  a  secondary  meaning,  as  I  have  shown  on  the 
part  of  bapto,  and  I  will  without  controversy  admit  the  fact.  But  when 
Mr.  B.  has  done  this,  he  has  not  succeeded ;  even  then  I  am  perfectly 
able  to  prove   that  the  word  applies  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism  in 


FIRST   REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER.  461 

its  primary  meaning.  A  primary  and  a  secondary  meaning  may  co-exist, 
while  each  of  them  must  be  capable  of  being  definitely  ascertained.  I 
deny  a  secondary  meaning,  not  because  it  would  disprove  immersion  in 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  but  because  it  wants  the  countenance  of  use. 
I  give  my  opponents  the  whole  range  of  Greek  literature  till  the  institu- 
tion of  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  I  have  never  met  an  example  which 
I  cannot  reduce  to  the  one  meaning. 

Section  IX. — Mr.  B.'s  explanation  of  Acts  xxii.  16,  is  not  a  little 
singular.  On  the  strength  of  this  single  example,  I  would  undertake  to 
refute  his  meaning  of  the  word  in  dispute.  Let  us  hear  his  explanation 
of  it.  "  Here,"  says  he,  "  we  have  faith  in  Christ,  the  washing  away  or 
pardon  of  sins,  and  a  purification  intended  to  symbolise  it.  Baptisai, 
purify  thyself,  or  be  purified  bodily, — apolousai  tas  amartias,  wash  away 
thy  sins,  as  to  the  mind,  by  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord."  On  this 
I  remark,  1.  This  makes  the  pardon  of  sins  to  be  conferred  at  the  time 
of  baptism.  It  is  the  very  error  which  he  reprobates,  p.  42.  If  the  dis- 
tinction is,  that  purification  is  emblematic,  and  pardon  of  sins  real,  then 
the  pardon  of  sins  takes  place  in  baptism.  In  fact,  this  is  what  he  ex- 
pressly says.  He  makes  purify  refer  to  the  body,  and  wash  away  thy 
sins  refer  to  the  mind.  Could  Mr.  B.  more  clearly  avow  the  doctrine 
which  he  stigmatises? 

2.  This  makes  the  external  rite  of  baptism  purify  the  body  from  sin, 
while  the  mind  is  purified  not  by  baptism,  but  by  calling  on  the  name 
of  the  Lord.  If  the  body  is  not  purified  from  sin  by  the  rite,  it  is  not, 
according  to  Mr.  B.,  purified  at  all.  It  is  the  mind  only,  as  distinguished 
from  the  body,  that  is  purified  by  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord. 

3.  This  represents  the  mind  as  purified  at  the  time  of  baptism,  by 
calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord.  Is  it.  not  by  faith  in  the  blood  of 
Christ,  that  both  soul  and  body  are  purified  ?  And  does  not  this  take 
place  at  the  moment  when  the  sinner  believes  in  Christ. 

4.  It  is  not  said  that  he  was  to  wash  away  his  sins  by  calling  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  but  that  he  was  to  be  baptized,  having  called  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord. 

5.  Purify  and  wash  are  not  indeed  synonymous,  but  they  are  too 
nearly  related  to  be  both  applied  together  with  reference  to  the  same 
thing.  The  one  is  the  genus,  and  the  other  is  a  species  under  it.  Be 
purified,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  would  be  intolerable  English.  Is  not 
washing  contained  in  purifying  ?  What  need  is  there  for  both  the  genus 
and  the  species  ? 

6.  Mr.  B.  has  felt  this  consequence  ;  and  to  avoid  it,  he  has  invented 
a  distinction,  not  suggested  by  the  words,  but  inconsistent  both  with 
truth  and  with  the  passage. 

7.  The  emblem  in  baptism  refers  to  the  soul  as  well  as  to  the  body, 
though  the  body  only  is  washed ;  and  the  thing  signified  by  the  emblem 
refers  to  the  body  as  well  as  to  the  soul.  The  body  is  washed  from  sin 
as  well  as  the  mind.  The  distinction,  then,  is  not  between  the  baptism 
of  the  body  and  the  washing  of  the  soul. 

8.  "Be  baptized,"  evidently  refers  to  the  rite  as  designated  from  its 


462  FIRST    REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

mode;  and  "wash  away  thy  sins,"  to  its  emblematical  meaning.  Bap- 
tism is  the  name  of  the  rite ;  the  loashing  away  of  sins  is  its  emblem- 
atical import.  Sins  are  washed  away  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  the  moment 
a  person  believes  on  him.  This  is  exhibited  in  emblem  immediately 
after  believing  the  truth,  by  being  immersed  in  water.  Sins  are  emblem- 
atically washed  away  in  baptism,  just  as  ceremonial  sins  were  washed 
away  by  ceremonial  purification.  In  like  manner  the  Lord's  supper  re- 
presents that  which  has  already  taken  place,  and  not  that  which  is  done 
during  the  ordinance.  The  blood  was  previously  shed,  the  atonement 
was  made,  and  the  sins  of  the  worthy  partakers  were  remitted.  But  in 
the  ordinance  of  the  supper  all  this  is  exhibited  in  emblem. 

9.  This  phraseology  shows  that  baptism  is  a  washing  or  bathing :  then 
it  cannot  be  a  purification  by  sprinkling  a  few  drops  of  water.  This  is 
no  washing ;  the  whole  person  was  bathed. 

10.  Yet  though  there  is  a  washing  in  baptism,  the  word  baptism  can- 
not signify  washing,  for  this  would  be  to  say,  "  Be  washed,  and  wash 
away  thy  sins."  Two  words  with  exactly  the  same  meaning  could  not 
be  thus  conjoined.  No  criticism  will  ever  be  able  to  reconcile  this  pas- 
sage with  either  icashing  or  purifying  as  the  meaning  of  the  word  bap- 
tism.    It  is  suitable  only  to  its  modal  meaning,  immersion. 

Mr.  B.  thinks  that  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  proves  his  view.  The  apostle,  he 
tells  us,  "  seems  to  think  that,  if  he  left  the  word  baptisma  unguarded, 
he  might  be  taken  to  mean  the  external  purification  of  the  body."  Is 
not  this  reason  of  caution  as  applicable  to  immersion  as  to  purification  ? 
Whatever  might  have  been  the  name  or  mode  of  the  ordinance,  it  is  an 
ordinance  of  emblematic  purification,  and  as  such  was  liable  to  perversion. 
Have  not  Baptists  as  much  need  to  caution  ignorance  against  supposing 
that  the  external  rite  is  salvation,  as  those  who  make  the  word  signify 
purification  ?  The  immersion  is  an  emblematical  washing,  and  it  is 
necessary  to  guard  against  the  universal  proneness  to  superstition,  in 
substituting  rites  for  the  things  signified  by  them. 

Mr.  B.  seems  to  think  that  the  word  baptism  in  the  passage  does  not 
at  all  refer  to  the  Christian  rite,  but  to  purification  or  atonement  by  the 
blood  of  Christ.  This  conceit  is  unworthy  of  notice.  1.  Immerse  is 
the  meaning  of  the  word,  whatever  the  immersion  may  represent.  2.  It 
is  the  appropriated  name  of  the  ordinance,  and  to  the  ordinance  it  must 
refer  here,  whatever  the  word  may  signify.  3.  That  it  refers  to  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism  is  evident  on  the  whole  face  of  the  document.  No 
man  could  deny  this  who  had  not  a  purpose  to  serve.  4.  Mr.  B.  does 
not,  as  he  ought,  show  the  consistency  of  the  meaning  alleged,  with  the 
phraseology  of  the  passage.  5.  The  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  the  sal- 
vation of  Noah  by  water,  have  the  most  lively  resemblance.  Noah  and 
his  family  were  saved  by  being  buried  in  the  water  of  the  flood ;  and 
after  the  flood  they  emerged  as  rising  from  the  grave.  There  is  no  cor- 
respondence between  purification  and  the  water  of  the  flood.  6.  We  are 
saved  by  baptism,  just  as  Paul  washed  away  his  sins  by  baptism — just 
as  the  bread  in  the  Lord's  supper  is  Christ's  body,  and  the  wine  his 
blood — just  as  the  rock  was  Christ — just  as  the  joint  participation  in 
eating  the  bread  and  drinking  the  wine  in  the  supper,  is  the  communion 


FIRST    REPLY   TO   PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  463 

of  the  body  of  Christ,  and  of  the  blood  of  Christ.  There  is  no  difficulty 
in  this  phraseology  to  any  who  have  not  some  heresy  to  support  by  per- 
version. 

The  author  refers  next  to  the  authority  of  Josephus.  I  have  already 
disposed  of  the  testimony  of  Josephus,  with  regard  to  the  baptism  of 
John :  it  is  completely  in  accordance  with  our  views  of  the  mode  of  the 
ordinance  of  Christ.  "  To  denote  baptism,"  says  Mr.  B.,  "  he  uses  the 
word  baptesis,  and  to  denote  its  import  he  states  that  they  are  to  use  it, 
eph  agneia  tou  somatos,"  &c.  Josephus  does  not  use  baptesis  to  denote 
the  rite  of  baptism,  but  for  the  act  of  baptizing.  To  denote  the  rite,  he 
uses  baptismos.  The  e  baptesis  is  the  immersing — baptismos  is  the  rite 
of  immersion.  And  the  words  of  Josephus,  quoted  by  the  author,  are 
the  import  of  the  rite  as  to  its  nature  or  object,  not  the  import  of  its 
name.  This  manifests  a  great  want  of  discrimination  in  my  opponent. 
Except  this  were  the  import  of  the  name  of  the  rite,  it  cannot  serve  him. 

The  import  of  the  rite,  as  given  by  Josephus,  instead  of  serving  my 
opponent,  refutes  him.  If  the  people  came  to  John's  baptism  on  account 
of  purification,  then  baptism  is  the  name  of  the  rite,  and  purification  is 
its  object.  They  came  to  be  immersed  in  order  to  be  purified  by  that 
immersion.     Surely  a  very  child  will  understand  this. 

"  Now  here  I  remark,"  says  my  antagonist,  "  that  there  was  nothing 
to  cause  Josephus  or  any  other  Jew  to  think  of  the  mode,  or  to  attach 
any  importance  to  it."  What  trifling  is  this!  What  necessity  for 
Josephus  to  think  anything  of  the  mode?  Does  this  say  that  a  certain 
mode  was  not  employed,  and  that  Josephus  did  not  mention  the  puri- 
fication by  the  name  of  the  mode  employed?  Does  any  one  expect 
Josephus  to  attach  importance  to  the  mode  whatever  it  might  be? 
Does  this  imply  that  Jesus  attached  no  importance  to  the  mode?  I 
never  met  so  great  and  so  constant  a  want  of  discrimination.  Suppose 
an  infidel  to  give  an  account  of  the  performance  of  this  rite  by  immer- 
sion, would  he  not  speak  of  it  as  an  immersion  ? 

"  No  idea,"  continues  the  author,  "  of  a  fancied  reference,  in  the  rite, 
to  the  death  of  Christ,  could  bias  his  mind  to  the  sense  immersion." 
Was  it  necessary  that  Josephus  should  understand  the  reference  of  the 
mode  of  this  rite  to  the  death  of  Christ,  in  order  to  his  knowing  it  to  be 
an  immersion ;  and  in  order  to  his  giving  it  the  modal  appropriated 
name?  I  am  not  sure  that  John  the  Baptist  understood  this.  Did 
Josephus  understand  the  emblem  of  the  burial  of  Christ,  that  was  con- 
tained in  the  figure  of  Jonas  in  the  belly  of  the  whale  ?  Did  all  men 
know  what  was  the  import  of  the  rite  of  circumcision,  who  spoke  of  it 
by  its  appropriated  name ;  and  who  knew  what  was  performed  in  the 
rite?  How  many  people  know  that  the  Baptists  immerse  in  the  per- 
formance of  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  who  do  not  know  that  in  that 
mode  they  have  a  reference  to  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of 
Christ  ?     I  am  weary  of  replying  to  childish  trifling. 

"  To  him,  it  is  plain,"  continues  the  author,  "  that  it  meant  nothing 
but  purifying  the  body,"  &-c.  It  may  be  very  true  that  the  rite  was 
understood  by  Josephus  to  mean  nothing  but  purifying  the  body,  with- 
out implying  that  its  name  signified  purification.     As  usual  the  author 


464  FIRST    REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER. 

does  not  distinguish  between  the  name  of  the  rite  and  the  object  of  the 
rite.  Though  Josephus  might  see  no  emblem  in  the  mode,  does  this 
imply  that  immersion  was  not  its  mode ;  that  it  had  not  its  name  from 
the  mode ;  and  that  Josephus  spoke  not  of  it  by  its  appropriated  modal 
name  ?     It  is  sickening  to  be  obliged  to  notice  such  arguments. 

"  Now,"  says  the  writer,  "  although  I  would  not  rely  on  such  places 
for  proof,  against  a  strong  contrary  probability,  yet  when  I  find  them 
so  perfectly  coincident  with  all  other  facts ;  when  all  shades  of  proba- 
bility so  perfectly  harmonise  and  blend  in  a  common  result,  I  cannot 
hesitate,  for  I  see  no  good  reason  for  doubt."  Whatever  may  be  sup- 
posed the  probability  with  regard  to  the  mode  in  the  facts  referred  to, 
independently  of  testimony,  the  moment  competent  testimony  gives  its 
evidence,  it  decides  the  matter.  Instead  of  a  probability,  there  is  a 
certainty  that  immersion  was  the  mode,  because  the  word  used  by  the 
historian  signifies  immersion,  and  has  no  other  meaning.  Is  not  the 
meaning  of  a  word  testimony  1  The  author  here  admits  the  possibility 
of  immersion  in  each  of  the  cases  referred  to.  What,  then,  should 
prevent  it,  when  it  is  testified  by  a  word  that  has  no  other  meaning? 
This  is  testimony  against  previous  improbability,  which  in  all  courts 
is  competent  evidence.  That  cannot  be  a  safe  principle,  which,  it  is 
admitted,  may  possibly  fail.  Now  the  author  himself  here  admits  that 
the  principle  on  which  he  interprets  this  word,  will  not  universally  hold 
good. 

Mr.  Beecher  proceeds  on  an  axiom  that  is  false,  fanatical,  and  sub- 
versive of  all  revealed  truth,  namely,  that  meaning  is  to  be  assigned  to 
words  in  any  document,  not  from  the  authority  of  the  use  of  the  lan- 
guage, ascertained  by  acknowledged  examples ;  but  from  views  of  pro- 
bability as  to  the  thing  related,  independently  of  the  testimony  of  the  word. 
He  learns  not  facts  from  history ;  but  he  dictates  to  history.  The  his- 
torian he  will  not  allow  to  use  his  words  in  the  sense  acknowledged  by 
the  language,  because  that  sense  is,  he  thinks,  unsupported  by  the  pre- 
vious probability  of  the  fact. 

If  a  word  is  found  to  have  two  meanings,  it  is  lawful  in  every  instance 
of  its  occurrence,  to  bring  their  respective  claims  to  the  test.  But  if  a 
secondary  meaning  is  not  in  proof,  previous  probability  as  to  the  fact  has 
nothing  to  do ;  because  a  thing  previously  improbable  may  be  received 
as  truth,  with  perfect  confidence,  on  sufficient  testimony.  To  allege 
probability  against  the  ascertained  meaning  of  a  word,  is  to  deny  testi- 
mony as  a  source  of  evidence ;  for  the  meaning  of  testimony  must  be 
known  from  the  words  used.  This  is  a  Neological  canon,  and  is  the 
very  principle  on  which  Neologists  interpret  the  Bible.  It  is  very  im- 
probable, they  say,  that  such  a  thing  was  the  case,  therefore  the  words 
of  the  historian  do  not  mean  this.  It  is  very  improbable,  some  say,  that 
Samson  killed  so  many  people  with  a  jaw-bone  of  an  ass ;  therefore  the 
word  does  not  here  signify  the  jaw-bone  of  an  ass,  but  the  tooth  oj  a 
rock,  which  being  loosely  attached,  was  pulled  down  on  his  enemies  by 
the  hero.  This  canon  would  not  leave  a  miracle  in  the  Bible,  nor  a 
doctrine  in  revelation. 

On  the  same  principle,  should  a  foreigner  read  in  English,  that  a 


FIRST   REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER.  465 

prisoner  was  immersed  in  jail,  on  the  belief  of  the  Gospel,  he  might  say, 
"  as  it  is  improbable  that  there  was  water  for  the  dipping  of  his  person, 
it  is  to  be  concluded  that  immerse  here  signifies  to  purify  without  refer- 
ence to  mode."  Yet  immerse  does  not  more  decidedly  mean  to  dip,  than 
does  baptizo ;  and  there  is  not  in  all  Mr.  B.'s  examples,  a  higher  proba- 
bility than  this.  Such  previous  probabilities  give  place  to  testimony,  as 
darkness  gives  place  to  light. 

Mr.  B.  alleges  that  "  it  is  not  a  solitary  fact  on  which  the  argument 
rests."  This  can  mean  no  more,  as  to  the  examples  alleged,  than  that 
there  are  several  instances  of  improbability,  considered  previously  to 
testimony.  But  this  is  not  a  combination  of  evidence.  Each  of  the 
cases  considered  separately  is  nothing;  all  taken  together,  then,  must  be 
nothing :  it  is  the  addition  or  multiplication  of  ciphers.  The  Columbine 
bridge  will  solve  a  thousand  such  difficulties. 

There  is  no  word,  whose  meaning  is  not  liable  to  the  like  objections, 
as  are  here  alleged  with  respect  to  the  word  in  dispute.  What  word  is 
there,  which  in  the  whole  history  of  its  use,  does  not  sometimes  occur 
in  circumstances,  in  which  the  thing  which  it  attests  is  previously  as 
improbable  as  immersion  in  the  cases  referred  to  by  Mr.  B.  1  Yet  this 
never  shakes  our  confidence  as  to  the  meaning  of  any  word,  when  it 
testifies.  There  are  some  islands  in  which  it  is  very  improbable  that 
horses  would  be  found ;  yet  if  a  traveller  tells  us  that  he  saw  a  horse,  we 
shall  believe  either  that  he  really  saw  a  horse,  or  that  he  deceives  us. 
We  never  think  of  solving  the  difficulty,  by  alleging  that  horse  here  sig- 
nifies a  leopard. 

With  respect  to  the  relation  between  the  name  of  this  ordinance  and 
purification,  the  reason  is  quite  obvious.  That  a  coincidence  and  har- 
mony should  exist  between  a  word  which  is  the  appropriated  name  of 
an  ordinance,  and  the  thing  emblematically  meant  by  the  ordinance,  is 
a  thing  that  can  strike  no  philologist  with  surprise.  This  is  altogether 
necessary,  instead  of  being  a  thing  unexpected.  There  cannot  be  an 
instance  of  a  similar  connexion  without  a  similar  result.  If  baptisma  is 
the  name  of  the  ordinance,  whatever  may  be  supposed  its  meaning ; 
and  if  purification  is  the  emblem  of  the  ordinance,  there  must  be  such 
a  coincidence.  Any  man  of  ordinary  understanding  will  perceive  the 
ground  of  the  connexion,  without  any  recourse  to  identity  of  meaning 
in  the  terms  baptize  and  purify.  Was  not  the  ordinance  of  circum- 
cision so  connected  with  purification  ?  Yet  the  word  circumcise  does  not 
signify  to  purify. 

But  if  all  these  examples  were  admitted  to  imply  this  meaning,  it 
would  not  prove  that  the  rite  of  baptism  is  not  an  immersion.  These 
examples  refer  not  to  baptism.  Even  on  that  supposition  we  should 
fight  the  battle  with  success. 

"  The  argument,"  says  my  antagonist,  "  from  the  usage  of  the  writers 
of  Alexandrine  Greek,  is  now  at  an  end."  Would  not  any  one  from 
reading  this  conclude  that  he  had  brought  from  these  writers,  examples 
in  which  the  word  is  used  without  reference  to  mode?  But  has  he 
alleged  one  such  1  All  he  has  done  is  to  allege  that  the  word  is  some- 
times used,  when,  without  reference  to  the  testimony  of  the  word,  im- 

59 


466  FIRST   REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER. 

mersion  is  improbable.  Does  this  imply  that  the  thing  is  improbable, 
after  the  word  gives  its  testimony?  Have  I  not  exemplified  this  by  an 
instance  from  Columbine  English?  He  need  not  go  to  Alexandrine 
Greek  for  such  instances ;  they  might  occur  in  the  oldest  Greek  without 
affecting  the  question 

Section  X. — Mr.  B.  next  professes  to  find  proof  in  the  Fathers. 
Proof  from  the  Fathers  that  baptizo  signifies  to  purify !  As  well  might 
he  profess  to  find  in  them  proof  for  the  existence  of  railroads  and  steam- 
coaches.  There  is  no  such  proof;  there  is  not  an  instance  in  all  the 
Fathers  in  which  the  word,  or  any  of  its  derivatives,  are  so  used.  With- 
out exception,  they  use  the  word  always  for  immersion.  Now  a  reader 
not  acquainted  with  the  Fathers,  may  ask  himself,  how  it  is  possible 
that  two  persons  can  give  a  directly  contradictory  account  of  the  testi- 
mony of  the  same  documents.  Without  any  reference  to  the  veracity  of 
either  of  the  combatants,  he  may  say,  the  fact  must  be  so  easily  decided, 
that  it  is  strange  that  any  of  them  should  be  rash  in  his  testimony. 
Let  such  a  reader  attend  a  moment  to  me,  and  I  will  ask  no  learning  in 
him,  in  order  to  enable  him  to  decide  between  us :  all  I  demand  is  a 
little  common  sense. 

Well,  how  does  Mr.  B.  bring  out  his  proof?  If  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers  prove  that  they  understood  this  word  in  Mr.  B.'s  sense,  must 
not  Mr.  B.  prove  this  by  alleging  examples  of  the  use  of  the  word  in 
this  sense?  Common  sense,  what  do  you  say?  But  Mr.  B.  attempts 
no  such  thing ;  he  does  not  appeal  to  the  use  of  the  word  by  the  Fathers, 
but  to  other  words  applied  by  the  Fathers  to  the  same  ordinance. 

Now  I  do  not  charge  my  opponent  with  dishonesty  in  the  use  of  this 
argument :  I  do  him  the  justice  to  believe  that  he  is  the  dupe  of  his 
own  sophistry ;  but  it  is  a  sophistry  childishly  weak.  I  have  already 
disposed  of  this  argument.  It  assumes  as  an  axiom,  that  words  that 
apply  to  the  same  ordinance  are  identical  in  signification.  Every  child 
may  see  that  this  is  not  fact.  The  same  ordinance  is  called  by  different 
persons,  the  Lord's  supper,  the  communion,  the  ordinance,  the  sacrament, 
the  eucharist,  &c.  Does  this  imply  that  each  of  these  words  is  identical 
in  meaning  with  the  term  Lorcts  supper,  or  that  they  are  identical  in 
meaning  with  each  other  ?  Every  one  of  these  words  has  a  meaning  of 
its  own,  while  they  all  agree  in  designating  the  same  ordinance.  Bap- 
tism itself  is  by  some  called  christening.  Does  this  imply  that  the  word 
baptism  signifies  christening?  I  could  produce  examples  at  will ;  but 
no  reader  can  need  more.  The  Fathers  called  baptism  regeneration ;  but 
they  never  supposed  that  the  word  baptism  signified  regeneration.  Both 
the  words  referred  to  the  same  ordinance,  but  they  referred  to  it  under 
a  different  view  of  it.  Baptism  was  its  appropriated  name  from  its 
mode :  regeneration  was  its  name  from  its  supposed  effect.  When  I  say 
William  the  First,  and  William  the  Conqueror,  I  refer  to  the  same  man, 
but  I  do  not  mean  that  the  first  signifies  the  Conqueror.  William  the 
First,  is  the  designation  of  the  man  as  king  of  England — the  Conqueror, 
is  a  designation  of  the  same  man  from  the  way  in  which  he  became 
king.     Even  if  katharizo  itself  had  been  the  appropriated  name  of  the 


FIRST    REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER.  467 

ordinance  of  baptism,  it  would  not  be  identical  in  meaning  with  the 
word  regeneration.  In  fact,  this  is  one  of  the  words  which  the  Fathers 
employed  to  denote  baptism,  yet  this  did  not  make  it  identical  in  mean- 
ing either  with  baptism  or  with  the  other  words  by  which  they  desig- 
nated this  ordinance.  When  baptism  is  called  purification  by  the  ancients, 
it  is  considered  as  it  was  supposed  to  purify  :  when  it  was  called  regene- 
ration, it  was  considered  as  a  new  birth.  Purification  is  baptism  under 
one  view  of  it :  regeneration  is  the  same  ordinance  under  another  view. 
Purification  does  not  signify  new  birth ;  nor  does  new  birth  signify  puri- 
fication. A  hundred  words  or  terms  might  be  used  to  denote  the  same 
ordinance,  without  implying  that  any  two  of  them  were  perfectly  iden- 
tical in  meaning.  In  fact,  a  great  multitude  were  actually  employed, 
while  each  designated  the  same  ordinance  in  its  own  peculiar  manner. 
The  Fathers  employed  a  great  multitude  of  terms  to  designate  baptism ; 
but  they  did  not  make  the  word  baptism  designate  the  same  idea  with 
each  or  any  of  these  terms. 

'  What  is  it  to  purify  the  spirit,"  he  asks,  "  but  to  regenerate  ?"  It  is 
true  that  they  who  are  purified  are  regenerated,  and  they  who  are 
regenerated  are  purified.  Still,  however,  the  terms  have  quite  different 
meanings.  Regeneration  is  a  new  birth :  purification  is  an  effect  of  this. 

I  might  now  dismiss  this  part  of  the  subject ;  but  our  author  gives  us 
such  a  delicious  morsel  of  his  philosophy,  in  accounting  for  the  fact  that 
baptism  came  to  be  considered  as  regeneration,  that  I  am  tempted  to 
take  a  look  at  it  for  a  moment.  Nothing  enables  us  with  greater  cer- 
tainty to  estimate  the  powers  of  an  author,  than  his  attempt  at  philosophy. 

"  Now,"  says  the  writer,  "  in  a  case  where  analogical  senses  exist,  one 
external  and  material,  and  the  other  spiritual,  it  is  natural  that  they 
should  run  into  each  other,  and  terms  applied  to  one  be  applied  to  the 
other.  Thus,  if  baptizo  means  to  purify,  then  there  is  natural  purifica- 
tion and  spiritual  purification,  or  regeneration,  and  there  would  be  a 
tendency  to  use  anagennao  to  denote  the  latter  idea,  and  also  to  transfer 
it  to  the  external  rite;  and,  at  first,  it  would  be  so  done  as  merely  to 
be  the  name  of  the  rite,  and  not  to  denote  its  actual  efficacy." 

Upon  this  I  remark  :  1. — The  author  here  mistakes  what  he  calls  the 
external  and  material  sense,  for  the  emblematic  sense.  It  is  of  the  em- 
blematic sense,  as  distinguished  from  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  he 
is  speaking ;  and  not  of  an  external  or  material  sense  as  distinguished 
from  a  spiritual  sense.  Purification,  for  instance,  first  applied  to  exter- 
nal things,  and  afterwards  by  analogy  was  transferred  to  the  mind.  But 
it  is  not  of  external,  or  material,  or  natural  purification,  as  distinguished 
from  spiritual  purification,  he  is  speaking ;  but  of  emblematic  purifica- 
tion, as  distinguished  from  the  purification  of  the  soul  and  body  from 
sin.  Every  external,  or  material,  or  natural  purification,  is  not  the  puri- 
fication of  which  he  is  speaking,  namely,  baptism.  It  is  only  when  the 
purification  is  emblematic,  that  it  is  the  purification  of  which  he  speaks. 
The  relation,  then,  which  subsists  between  what  he  calls  the  external  or 
material  sense,  and  the  spiritual  sense,  is  not  the  same  with  the  relation 
that  subsists  between  the  emblematic  sense  and  the  proper  sense  of 
the  word.     Purification  applies  as  properly  to  mind  as  to  matter,  and 


468  FIRST    REPLY   TO   PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

designates  neither  of  them  separately,  but  includes  both  of  them.  To 
apply  to  either  of  them  separately,  the  word  has  not  to  give  up  its  mean- 
ing, or  to  run  into  a  different  meaning. 

2.  The  running  of  two  senses  into  each  other  is  philological  transub- 
stantiation.  Two  senses  cannot  run  into  each  other,  nor  can  one  sense 
run  into  another  sense.  This  language  is  paradoxical.  Not  only  does 
the  whale  swallow  Jonah,  but  Jonah  at  the  same  time  swallows  the 
whale.  Whatever  change  may  take  place  in  the  application  of  words, 
one  sense  cannot  become  another:  this  would  imply  that  a  thing  is 
different  from  itself. 

3.  The  author  here  supposes  that  purification  in  baptism  is  natural 
purification.  But  is  the  design  of  baptism  to  wash  away  the  filth  of  the 
flesh  ?     Is  not  the  purification  of  baptism  an  emblematic  purification  ? 

4.  He  tells  us  that  on  the  supposition  that  baptizo  signifies  to  purify, 
with  reference  to  both  material  and  spiritual  purification,  there  would 
be  a  tendency  to  use  the  word  anagennao  to  denote  the  latter  idea. 
What  is  the  latter  idea?  Is  it  not  spiritual  purification,  or  regenera- 
tion ?  What  is  this  but  to  say,  that,  on  a  certain  condition,  there  is  a 
tendency  to  use  a  word  in  its  own  sense?  There  is  a  tendency  to  use 
the  word  regeneration  for  regeneration ;  and  a  tendency  to  use  a  word 
that  signifies  spiritual  purification  for  spiritual  purification.  A  wonder- 
ful tendency  indeed !  Does  not  the  author  himself  explain  regeneration 
as  signifying  spiritual  purification?  He  must  be  a  hardy  sceptic  who 
will  deny  this. 

5.  He  tells  us  here,  that  if  baptizo  signifies  to  purify,  with  reference 
to  both  natural  and  spiritual  purification,  there  will  be  a  tendency  to 
transfer  the  word  anagennao  to  the  external  site.  Now  would  not  this  ten- 
dency be  the  same,  on  the  supposition  that  the  purification  was  to  be  found 
in  the  nature  of  the  rite,  as  if  it  were  found  in  the  name  of  the  rite  ? 

6.  If  baptizo  signifies  both  natural  and  spiritual  purification,  and 
anagennao  signifies  only  the  latter,  what  tendency  is  there  to  transfer 
anagennao  to  a  rite  designated  by  baptizo,  in  that  part  of  its  significa- 
tion which  anagennao  does  not  possess;  abandoning  that  part  of  the 
meaning  of  baptizo  which  it  does  possess?  Surely  if  from  the  partial 
agreement  of  baptizo  and  anagennao,  the  latter  is  transferred  to  a  rite 
designated  by  the  former,  it  must  be  in  that  part  of  their  meaning  in 
which  they  agree — not  in  a  meaning  in  which  they  differ.  This  is  a  very 
perverse  and  capricious  tendency.  Can  the  author  illustrate  this  ten- 
dency ?     He  affirms  it,  but  does  not  show  it. 

7.  He  tells  us  that  in  the  first  application  of  anagennao  to  baptism,  it 
would  be  as  the  name  of  the  rite  without  reference  to  its  effect.  This 
is  absurd  and  self-evidently  false.  How  does  anagennao  come  to  be 
applied  to  the  rite  of  baptism  ?  Is  it  not,  even  on  the  author's  theory, 
because  it  agrees  with  baptizo  in  a  part  of  its  meaning?  If  then  it  is 
applied  to  the  rite,  from  its  agreement  with  the  appropriated  name  of 
the  rite  in  a  part  of  its  meaning,  it  must  be  applied  to  the  rite  in  that 
part  of  its  meaning  in  which  it  agrees  with  baptizo,  and  not  in  that  part 
of  the  meaning  of  baptizo  with  which  it  has  nothing  common.  No 
axiom  is  more  clear  than  this. 


FIRST   REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER.  469 

8.  Of  all  the  terms  by  which  the  Fathers  designated  baptism,  there  is 
not  one  of  them  conferred  on  it  on  the  principle  supposed  by  the  author. 
Even  katharismos  is  not  given  to  this  ordinance  on  the  principle  of  the 
connexion  between  analogical  meanings ;  but  as  the  nature  of  the  rite  is 
supposed  to  be  a  purification.  The  various  names  are  conferred  on  it, 
not  from  their  relation  to  the  word  baptizo,  the  appropriated  name  of 
the  ordinance,  but  from  the  supposed  nature  of  the  ordinance.  Any 
child  may  understand  this.  It  is  called  initiation,  for  instance.  Has 
initiation  any  relation  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo  ?  It  is  called 
illumination.  Has  the  word  illumination  any  relation  to  the  word  baptizo, 
whatever  may  be  the  meaning  of  baptizo  ?  The  author's  philosophy  is 
false,  absurdly  and  extravagantly  false.  He  gives  us  eight  lines  of  phi- 
losophy. I  will  give  a  premium  to  any  one  who  will  produce  me  a 
greater  quantity  of  absurdity  in  the  same  compass,  under  the  appearance 
of  wisdom.  The  only  merit  this  nonsense  can  claim,  is  that  it  is  original 
nonsense.  No  one  these  seventeen  hundred  years  has  ever  thought  of 
accounting  for  the  opinion  that  baptism  is  regeneration,  on  the  principle 
of  President  Beecher.  It  grieves  me  to  be  obliged  to  write  in  this  man- 
ner ;  but  I  cannot  avoid  it.  Half-learned  people  will  think  that  this 
account  of  the  phenomenon  is  an  unparalleled  effort  of  philosophy ;  and 
thousands  will  rely  on  it  who  cannot  pretend  to  fathom  it.  They  will 
conclude  either  that  he  is  right,  or  that  the  subject  is  so  deeply  involved 
in  obscurity,  that  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  bring  the  truth  to  light.  I 
cannot  avoid  showing  that  there  is  neither  learning  nor  logic  in  the 
attempt  to  unsettle  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  question. 

But  the  source  from  which  baptismal  regeneration  springs  is  not  left 
to  philosophical  investigation.  The  ground  on  which  the  Fathers  con- 
sidered baptism  to  be  the  means  of  regeneration,  and  to  be  essential  to 
salvation,  is  clearly  attested  by  themselves.  The  very  passage  which 
Mr.  B.  quotes  from  Justin  Martyr  fully  explains  this :  it  was  their  view 
of  John  iii.  3.  In  giving  an  account  of  the  dedication  of  Christians  to 
God,  Justin  Martyr  tells  us,  that  after  a  certain  process,  the  candidates 
were  led  by  the  Christians  to  a  place  where  there  was  water,  and  were 
regenerated  as  they  themselves  had  been  regenerated.  Here  I  observe 
that  President  Beecher  is  mistaken  in  supposing  that  anagennao  here 
describes  the  rite.  It  does  not  describe  the  rite ;  but  tells  us  what  is 
effected  by  the  rite :  the  persons  baptized  were  regenerated  by  baptism. 
Justin  then  tells  us  the  reason  why  he  says  they  were  regenerated  by 
baptism.  "  For,"  says  he,  "  they  are  washed  or  bathed  in  the  water,  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,"  &c.  Does  not  this  imply  that  the  washing 
was  the  baptism ;  and  that  by  that  washing  they  were  regenerated  ?  It 
is  because  they  were  so  washed,  that  he  considers  them  to  have  been 
born  again.  Regeneration  is  not  here  considered  as  the  name  of  the 
ordinance,  nor  as  synonymous  with  its  name ;  but  as  an  effect  of  the 
rite,  which  consists  in  a  certain  washing. 

Justin  Martyr  next  expressly  refers  to  John  iii.  3,  as  their  authority 
for  considering  that  regeneration  was  effected  by  baptism.  He  then 
refers  to  Isaiah  i.  16,  to  prove  the  same  thing.  Justin  subjoins  an 
account  which  he  alleges  they  had  from  the  apostles,  of  the  necessity  cf 


470  FIRST   REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

this  second  birth,  by  a  contrast  of  it  with  the  first  birth ;  and  in  this 
he  expressly  asserts,  that  they  obtained  remission  of  former  sins  "  in  the 
water."     Here  is  a  foundation  for  all  the  towers  of  Babylon. 

Now  if  President  Beecher  had  this  document  before  him,  as  his  quo- 
tation leads  us  to  believe,  how  could  he  give  such  a  philosophical  account 
of  the  origin  of  the  belief  of  baptismal  regeneration  ?  How  could  he 
doubt  that  baptism  was  understood  by  the  Fathers  to  be  a  washing  of 
the  whole  body  ?  Is  it  not  described  as  a  washing  of  the  person  ?  On 
what  account  are  candidates  led  to  places  where  there  was  water?  Are 
not  baptized  persons  considered  as  having  their  former  sins  remitted  in 
the  water?  What  is  the  hardihood  of  men  who  can  presume  to  allege 
the  Fathers  on  the  other  side ! 

I  may  observe  also  that  the  editor  of  Justin,  in  a  note,  refers  to 
Clemens  Alexandrinus,  who  says,  that  "  the  same  thing  is  often  called 
gift,  and  illumination,  and  initiation,  and  bathing.  Bathing,  because 
through  it  we  are  cleansed  from  our  sins ;  illumination,  because  through 
it  that  holy  light  which  is  salvation  is  beheld,"  &c.  Justin  himself  says 
that  this  ivashing  is  called  illumination,  because  the  minds  of  those  who 
learn  these  things  are  enlightened.  Is  it  not  obvious  to  a  child  that  every 
one  of  these  names  is  given  to  the  rite  on  a  different  ground  ?  Not  one 
of  these  is  given  as  a  synonyme  of  baptismos.  It  is  washing  for  one 
reason,  it  is  illumination  for  another,  and  initiation  for  another.  Even 
in  this  very  passage,  Justin  commences  by  referring  to  baptism  as  a 
dedication.     See  Justin  Martyr,  p.  S9,  Thirlby's  Ed. 

It  is  strange  to  astonishment  that  President  Beecher  did  not  perceive 
that  each  of  the  words  applied  by  the  Fathers  to  the  rite  of  baptism,  has 
the  same  right  to  force  its  meaning  on  the  word  baptism,  as  the  word 
purification  has,  from  the  fact  of  this  application.  If  any  one  chooses  to 
adopt  the  theory  that  the  word  baptism  signifies  illumination,  or  initia- 
tion, or  dedication,  &c.  &c. ;  may  he  not  allege  that  the  Fathers  called 
baptism  by  this  name?  The  answer  to  all  is,  the  Fathers  did  call  bap- 
tism by  all  these  names ;  but  they  did  not  make  the  word  baptism  signify 
any  of  them.  It  was  baptism  from  its  mode :  it  was  each  of  all  those 
other  things  from  its  nature.  He  who  cannot  perceive  this,  is  not  fit 
for  the  discussion  of  a  deep  philological  question. 

"  This  view,"  says  Mr.  B.,  "  explains  not  only  the  early  prevalence  of 
the  idea  of  baptismal  regeneration,  but  also  the  other  extreme,  the  entire 
denial  of  water  baptism."  There  is  no  philosophy  in  this  observation. 
Will  a  rite  be  more  likely  to  be  perverted  from  its  name,  than  it  will  be 
from  its  nature  ?  Is  it  not  obvious  that  whatever  may  be  the  meaning 
of  its  name,  if  it  implies  purification  in  its  nature,  or  import,  the  sup- 
posed tendency  will  be  the  same  ?  And  as  to  the  latter  part  of  the 
argument,  whatever  may  be  the  meaning  of  the  name,  or  even  the  import 
of  the  rite,  when  it  is  grossly  perverted,  there  will  be  the  same  tendency 
for  one  extreme  to  produce  another.  Some  in  flying  from  the  perver- 
sion of  the  ordinance,  will  relieve  themselves  by  denying  the  ordinance 
altogether.  Whether  the  name  of  the  rite  signifies  immersion,  or  pour- 
ing, or  sprinkling,  or  purification,  or  initiation,  or  dedication,  &c.  &c, 
if  purification  is  implied  in  its  nature,  there  will  be  the  same  tendency  to 


FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  471 

pervert  it ;  and  when  the  perversion  is  perceived,  there  will  be  the  same 
tendency  to  get  rid  of  the  perversion,  by  freeing  themselves  from  the  rite. 

"  Besides  this  general  reasoning  from  well-known  facts,"  says  Mr.  B., 
"  there  is  also  philological  proof  that  the  word  was  often  used  by  the 
Fathers  in  the  sense  katharizo." 

I.  Now  how  does  he  prove  this.  I  am  fond  of  philological  proof. 
His  first  philological  proof  that  the  Fathers  often  used  the  word  in  the 
sense  of  purify,  is  taken  from  the  passage  in  Justin  Martyr  already  con- 
sidered ;  in  which  he  refers  to  baptism  by  the  phrase  loutron  poiountai, 
"  they  wash  or  purify  them ;"  that  is,  there  is  proof  that  the  word  is  here 
used  in  a  certain  sense,  when  the  word  is  not  here  used  at  all ! 

2.  He  here  assumes  that  wash  and  purify  are  the  same.  They  are 
not  the  same ;  and  they  are  distinguished  in  the  very  passage  quoted  from 
Justin  Martyr.  The  words  which  he  cites  from  Isaiah  are  lousasthc, 
Itatharoi  genesthe,  "  wash  ye,  make  you  clean."  Washing  is  the  action 
performed — purification  is  the  effect  of  this  action.  Will  President 
Beecher  never  learn  to  distinguish  things  that  differ  ?  Even  if  the  word 
baptism  signified  washing,  this  would  not  make  it  signify  purification  in 
general.     Even  this,  instead  of  proving,  would  overturn  Mr.  B.'s  theory. 

3.  The  phrase  loutron  poiountai  in  Justin  Martyr,  as  I  have  already 
showed,  does  not  designate  regeneration,  but  the  action  by  which  rege- 
neration was  supposed  to  be  effected,  or  as  President  Beecher  himself 
here  says,  "  the  mode  of  regeneration." 

4.  Baptism  is  a  washing,  and  is  so  called  by  the  Scriptures  as  well  as 
by  the  Fathers ;  but  this  does  not  imply  that  the  word  baptism  signifies 
washing.  I  think  by  this  time  I  must  have  made  this  distinction  clear  to 
my  opponent. 

5.  This  phrase  is  not  only  not  inconsistent  with  immersion,  but  im- 
merse is  the  only  thing  that  will  explain  it.  A  purification  performed  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring  a  few  drops  of  water,  would  not  be  a  loutron. 

Mr.  B.'s  second  argument  to  prove  that  the  Fathers  used  the  word  as 
signifying  purification,  is,  that  Chrysostom  says,  that  Christ  "  calls  his 
cross  and  death  a  cup  and  baptism;  a  cup,  because  he  readily  drank  it; 
baptism,  because  by  it  he  purified  the  world."  But  is  it  not  obvious 
that  Chrysostom  refers  not  to  the  name  of  the  rite,  but  to  the  rite  itself 
in  its  import?  Whatever  may  be  supposed  the  meaning  of  the  name 
of  this  rite,  it  is  in  its  nature  a  rite  of  purification.  The  meaning  of 
Chrysostom  is  perfectly  the  same,  whatever  may  be  supposed  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  baptism.  It  is  quite  immaterial  whether  the  idea  of 
purification  be  found  in  the  name,  or  in  the  nature,  of  the  ordinance. 
Shall  I  never  be  able  to  force  this  into  the  mind  of  my  antagonist?  If 
he  would  allow  himself  to  perceive  this  distinction,  he  would  be  delivered 
from  much  false  reasoning.  I  will  then  try  to  make  the  thing  plain  to 
every  child.  When  it  is  said  that  "  Christ  our  passover  is  sacrificed  for 
us,"  it  is  implied  that  the  passover  was  a  sacrifice.  But  does  this  imply 
that  the  word  passover  signifies  sacrifice  ?  The  phrase  circumcision  in 
heart,  signifying  purity  of  mind,  implies  that  circumcision  denoted  purity. 
But  does  this  imply  that  the  term  circumcision  means  purity  ?  Will 
Mr.  B.  need  another  lesson  ? 


472  FIRST    REPLY   TO   PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

But  there  must  be  in  my  antagonist  a  most  astonishing  want  of  per- 
spicacity, else  he  would  have  perceived  that  he  was  making  a  snare  for 
his  own  feet,  out  of  which  he  could  not  possibly  escape.  If  the  calling 
of  Christ's  cross  and  death  a  baptism,  because  it  purines,  implies  that 
the  word  baptism  signifies  purification,  then,  for  the  same  reason,  does 
not  the  calling  of  his  cross  and  death  a  cup,  because  he  readily  drank  it, 
imply  that  the  word  cup  signifies  drinking  ?  Try  now,  Mr.  President, 
to  escape  out  of  this  snare.  Is  it  not  obvious  to  every  man  of  common 
sense,  that  Chrysostom  refers  to  baptism  in  its  import  or  nature,  and  not 
to  its  name  ?  There  is  nothing  in  the  name  that  signifies  either  purifi- 
cation or  drinking.  The  same  answer  serves  for  the  quotations  from 
Theophylact,  and  for  all  others  of  a  similar  kind.  The  purification  is 
in  the  nature,  not  in  the  name  of  the  rite. 

Mr.  B.'s  third  argument  to  prove  that  the  Fathers  used  the  word  as 
signifying  purification,  is  that  they  "sometimes,  in  describing  the  rite, 
use  purify  alone;"  that  is,  a  great  number  of  passages  in  which  the 
Fathers  did  not  use  the  word  at  all,  prove  that  they  used  it  in  a  certain 
sense !  This  fact  proves  that  the  Fathers  used  purify  in  reference  to  the 
ordinance  of  baptism,  not  that  they  used  the  word  baptism  as  signifying 
purification.  I  have  already  fully  explained  the  principle  on  which  this 
word  and  all  the  other  names  were  given  to  this  ordinance.  None  of 
them  are  of  the  same  meaning  with  the  word  baptism. 

Mr.  B.  seems  quite  aware  that  the  authority  of  the  Fathers  for  the 
use  of  this  word  is  against  him ;  and  endeavours  to  escape  from  this 
argument.  "  It  would  be  of  no  use  here,"  says  he,  "  to  say  that  the 
Fathers  did  in  fact  immerse ;  this  could  not  decide  that  purify  was  not 
the  sense." 

1.  If  the  Fathers  immersed,  it  proves  that  they  considered  immersion 
as  the  proper  mode  of  the  ordinance. 

2.  The  authority  of  the  Fathers  on  this  question  is  not  their  practice, 
but  their  use  of  the  word.  They  not  only  immersed  in  baptism,  but  they 
use  the  word  always  for  immersion.  They  knew  the  meaning  of  the 
language  which  they  spoke.  On  their  practice  I  should  not  have  the  least 
reliance  on  any  question. 

3.  If  there  is  a  single  instance  of  immersion,  it  is  evidence  of  a  con- 
viction of  its  necessity.  Would  any  one  go  to  a  river  to  plunge,  if  he 
could  be  sprinkled  in  a  parlour? 

4.  Why  does  Mr.  B.  doubt  as  to  the  practice  of  the  Fathers,  when 
Justin  Martyr  shows  him  what  was  the  usual  practice? 

"And  even  if  it  could  be  shown,"  adds  the  author,  "  that  some  of  them 
use  the  word  baptizo  to  denote  the  act  of  immersion  in  baptism,  it  would 
avail  nothing ;  it  would  only  prove  inconsistent  usage." 

1.  "  Could  it  be  shown  that  some  of  the  Fathers  used  baptizo  for  the 
act  of  immersion  in  baptism !"  Might  he  not  as  well  say,  could  it  be 
shown  that  the  sun  shines  at  noon-day?  Can  the  man  who  will  not 
concede  this,  be  in  earnest  in  the  search  of  truth?  Can  any  man  who 
has  read  the  Fathers  consider  it  as  a  matter  of  doubt  whether  any  of 
them  use  this  word  in  this  sense  ?  No  fact  in  history  can  be  better 
ascertained.     Most  of  the  best  established  facts  on  record  have  not  as 


FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  473 

clear  evidence.  If  the  words  in  which  they  are  recorded  were  to  be 
interpreted  on  Mr.  B.'s  principles,  not  a  fact  of  them  could  remain  in 
evidence. 

2.  This  assumes  that  the  author  has  proved  a  contrary  practice.  But 
he  has  not  proved  this  in  a  single  instance. 

3.  If  it  is  admitted  that  some  of  the  Fathers  used  the  word  in  the 
sense  of  immersion,  all  the  arguments  alleged  by  Mr.  B.  will  be  quashed. 
They  can  prove  nothing  against  an  admitted  fact. 

4.  If  I  can  explain  all  his  alleged  facts  in  accordance  with  my  sense 
of  the  word,  and  if  it  is  admitted  that  some  of  the  Fathers  use  the  word 
in  this  sense,  is  it  likely  that  his  sense  of  the  word  is  the  just  one,  when 
it  makes  the  Fathers  inconsistent  with  one  another  and  themselves  in  the 
use  of  a  common  word  ? 

5.  Inconsistent  usage  can  never  be  fairly  alleged,  if  any  way  of  re- 
conciliation is  possible.  Only  on  this  principle  could  the  Scripture  itself 
be  freed  from  the  charge  of  contradiction ;  and  I  have  shown  the 
reconciliation. 

6.  Inconsistent  usage  cannot  be  charged  till  each  of  the  alleged 
meanings  is  in  full  proof.  Our  meaning  is  in  proof  that  candour  can 
never  question :  the  other  meaning  is  not  in  proof. 

7.  Is  it  on  the  authority  of  such  arguments  as  are  produced  by  Mr. 
B.  that  we  are  to  charge  inconsistency  of  usage  with  respect  to  a  com- 
mon word,  on  writers  who  lived  at  the  same  time,  and  derived  their 
knowledge  of  the  ordinance  from  the  same  sources? 

8.  Were  we  for  the  sake  of  argument  to  admit  that  the  word  had  a 
secondary  meaning,  and  were  we  to  indulge  Mr.  B.  in  supposing  that  it 
was  in  that  signification  applied  to  designate  the  ordinance  of  Christ, 
this  would  not  produce  an  inconsistency  of  usage  in  the  use  of  the  word 
with  respect  to  that  ordinance.  The  sense  in  which  it  was  used  by  the 
apostles  must  have  been  known  most  assuredly  to  all  that  either  heard 
them,  or  read  their  writings.  To  suppose  that  persons  who  spoke  the 
Greek  language  might  understand  their  words  in  a  sense  different  from 
that  in  which  they  used  them,  would  be  to  charge  the  Scripture  as  not 
being  a  revelation.  Whatever  was  the  sense  in  which  the  apostles  used 
the  word,  must  have  been  known  to  all  who  heard  them  or  read  their 
writings.     To  talk  of  "two  currents"  is  to  speak  without  thinking. 

9.  Can  any  other  such  inconsistency  of  usage  be  found  ?  The  cause 
that  produced  this  inconsistency  must  have  produced  many  others. 

10.  This  Alexandrine  Greek  is  a  perjured  witness.  When  it  is  brought 
into  court  by  the  sprinklers,  it  most  solemnly  swears  that  the  word  re- 
ceived a  secondary  meaning  of  sprinkling  or  pouring,  and  in  this  sense 
it  is  applied  to  the  rite  of  baptism.  When  it  has  been  tampered  with  by 
Mr.  B.,  it  as  solemnly  on  oath  renounces  such  a  meaning ;  and  deposes 
that  its  true  secondary  meaning  in  this  ordinance  is  purify.  May  it  not 
with  equal  propriety  be  brought  into  court  by  initiate,  dedicate,  illumi- 
nate, and  by  every  one  of  all  the  numerous  claimants?  What  is  it  that 
this  witness  ever  refused  to  swear,  when  solicited  by  a  sufficient  tempta- 
tion ?  If  President  Beecher  should  turn  into  Greek  letters,  a  document 
in  any  of  the  languages  of  the  Indian  tribes,  I  have  no  doubt  that  this 

60 


474  FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

witness  would  swear  in  an  English  court  that  it  is  good  Alexandrine 
Greek. 

11.  Where  is  this  Alexandrine  Greek  to  be  found?  If  it  exists  at 
all,  must  it  not  be  in  the  Septuagint?  Yet  no  such  usage  prevails 
in  that  translation.  The  word  is  used  here,  and  by  the  other  Jewish 
writers,  perfectly  in  the  same  sense  as  it  is  used  by  classical  Greeks. 
The  case  of  Naaman  the  Syrian  presents  this  fact  in  the  strongest 
light.  Instead  of  baptizo  having  the  sense  of  katharizo,  it  took  seven 
baptizos  to  make  one  katharizo.  And  even  a  child  may  here  see  that 
the  washing  and  the  cleansing  are  different  ideas.  "  Wash  in  Jordan 
seven  times,  and  thou  shalt  be  clean."  Washing  is  the  means  of  effect- 
ing the  purification. 

12.  If  baptizo  signified  purify  in  Alexandrine  Greek,  why  is  it  that 
in  all  the  numerous  passages  in  which  purification  is  spoken  of,  this 
word  is  not  once  to  be  found  in  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ?  Is  it  possible  that  a  word  in  its  primary  sense  signifying  to  dip, 
should,  from  its  constant  application  to  the  rights  of  purification  among 
the  Jews  who  spoke  the  Greek  language,  come  to  signify  to  purify ;  yet 
in  all  the  translations  used  by  those  Hellenistic  Jews,  the  word  should 
never  occur  in  that  sense,  when  speaking  of  their  different  purifications? 
I  confidently  affirm  that  this  observation  must  appear  convincing  to 
every  one  who  is  capable  of  weighing  it.  Is  it  possible  that  a  word  could 
get  a  secondary  meaning,  from  being  so  constantly  applied  to  certain 
rites,  when,  in  speaking  of  these  rites,  it  is  never  used  in  that  sense? 
Now  let  any  one  who  knows  only  so  much  Greek  as  to  enable  him  to 
trace  the  two  words  baptizo  and  katharizo  in  a  Greek  concordance  of 
the  Old  Testament ;  and  I  pledge  myself  that,  if  he  has  a  spark  of  can- 
dour or  honesty,  he  will  be  convinced. 

Nay,  I  will  make  the  matter  plain  even  to  the  most  unlearned.  Let 
them  take  an  English  concordance,  and  trace  the  word  purify  ;  and  when 
they  are  assured,  on  sufficient  testimony,  that  baptizo  is  not  used  in  any 
of  the  places,  will  they  ask  any  other  evidence  that  baptizo  did  not,  in 
the  estimation  of  the  Greek  translators,  signify  to  purify  ?  The  "  English- 
man's Greek  Concordance"  will  show  this  at  a  glance. 

13.  Even  the  Jews  who  lived  in  countries  where  the  Greek  language 
was  spoken,  would  use  their  own  language  in  their  worship.  There 
could  be  no  ground  for  their  giving  a  Greek  word  a  secondary  meaning, 
from  their  frequent  use  of  it  in  religious  matters.  There  is  no  philo- 
sophy in  this  philology. 

14.  If  a  secondary  meaning  was  likely  to  be  given  to  this  word  from 
its  frequent  application  to  purifying  rites,  would  not  this  principle  ope- 
rate more  powerfully  on  the  Hebrew  word  which  was  always  used  for 
immersion  by  the  Jews?  Yet  the  Hebrew  word  that  signifies  to  dip, 
never  obtained  the  secondary  meaning  of  purify. 

15.  If  frequent  application  of  a  modal  word  to  rites  of  purification, 
would  confer  a  secondary  meaning,  rantizo  would  have  been  more  likely 
than  baptizo  to  receive  the  meaning  of  purify.  It  is  more  frequently 
applied  to  purifying  rites  than  the  other. 

16.  Baptizo  is  by  no  writer,  either  with  respect  to  things  sacred  or 


FIRST    REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  475 

civil,  ever  applied  to  any  object  but  such  as  may  be  immersed.  To 
things  palpably  too  great  for  immersion  it  was  never  applied.  To  the 
purification  of  a  house,  of  the  city  Jerusalem,  of  the  temple,  it  is  applied 
by  no  writer.  Now,  if  it  signified  purification  as  definitely  as  katharizo 
itself,  how  is  it  that  it  is  never  used  to  designate  the  purification  of  any 
object  too  large  to  be  immersed  1  If  it  signified  purification,  we  should 
certainly,  on  some  occasion,  find  it  applied  to  the  largest  objects  that 
were  purified,  as  well  as  the  smallest. 

17.  Had  it  been  intended  that  the  word  to  be  appropriated  to  desig- 
nate this  rite  should  signify  purification,  katharismos  itself  would,  with- 
out doubt,  have  been  the  word.  This  suited  in  every  respect.  Why, 
then,  should  another  word  be  employed,  which  certainly  was  not  so 
suitable  for  the  supposed  purpose  1  What  should  prevent  katharismos  ? 
What  should  give  the  preference  to  baptisma  ?  Was  baptisma  employed 
in  order  to  create  confusion  ? 

18.  Though  the  rite  of  baptism  is  an  emblematical  purification,  yet 
purification  is  not  the  only  thing  represented  by  the  emblem.  The 
communion  of  the  believer  with  Christ  in  his  death,  burial,  and  resur- 
rection, and  his  salvation  by  that  union,  and  only  by  that  union,  is  also 
represented.  Katharis?nos,  then,  was  not  suitable  as  the  appropriated 
name  of  the  ordinance. 

19.  Is  there  any  Scripture  rite  in  which  the  way  in  which  the  things 
appointed  are  to  be  used,  is  not  also  appointed  1  Now,  according  to 
Mr.  B.  there  is  no  specific  way  appointed  for  the  performance  of  this 
rite.  We  may  plunge  the  person  once,  or  three  times ;  we  may  pour 
water  all  over  him,  or  pour  a  little  on  any  part  of  him ;  we  may  sprinkle 
him  all  over,  or  sprinkle  a  few  drops  on  any  part  of  him ;  we  may  rub  a 
little  water  on  any  part  of  him  with  our  finger,  as  in  the  eucharist  the 
ancients  rubbed  the  child's  lips,  or  we  may  rub  him  all  over.  Any 
application  of  water,  according  to  Mr.  B.,  will  be  equally  sufficient  for 
this  ordinance.  Can  sobriety  of  mind  receive  this  doctrine  1  Could 
sobriety  of  judgment  have  suggested  it? 

I  have  now  examined  Mr.  B.'s  arguments,  and  there  is  not  the  shadow 
of  evidence  that  the  word  baptism  signifies  purification.  I  have  met 
every  thing  that  has  even  a  shadow  of  plausibility;  and  completely  dis- 
sected my  antagonist.  Am  I  not  now  entitled  to  send  purify  to  the 
museum  as  a  lusus  naturce,  to  be  placed  by  the  side  of  its  brother  pop  ? 

Section  XI. — Facts  which  disprove  Mr.  Beecher's  Theory. — 
Having  fully  refuted  every  argument  presented  by  Mr.  Beecher,  I  shall 
now,  as  briefly  as  possible,  state  a  number  of  facts  which  dispute  his  theory. 

PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTURE  WHICH  EXPLAIN  BAPTISM  AS  AN  IMMERSION. 

Not  only  do  occurrences  of  the  word  in  question  prove  that  it  signifies 
immersion  and  not  purification,  but  the  Scriptures  themselves  explain  it 
as  an  immersion.  No  candid  mind  can  read  these  passages  without 
being  impressed  with  this  conviction. 

Rom.  vi.  4,  for  instance,  must  bring  conviction  to  every  mind  not 
shut  against  evidence.  All  attempts  to  explain  it  otherwise  are  unnatural, 


476  FIRST    REPLY   TO   PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

forced,  and  perfectly  unsuccessful.  The  same  may  be  said  with  respect 
to  Col.  ii.  12.  The  apostle  in  these  passages  reasons  on  immersion  as 
the  mode  of  this  ordinance,  and  draws  conclusions  from  its  import. 

Is  not  this  the  most  satisfactory  way  of  bringing  the  truth  of  criticism 
to  the  test?  The  phraseology  of  1  Peter  iii.  21,  gives  the  same  testi- 
mony. Baptism  is  explained  here  in  a  way  that  will  coincide  with  no 
view  of  this  ordinance,  but  that  of  immersion. 

PASSAGES  WHICH  IMPLY  THAT  IMMERSION  WAS  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Baptism  is  not  only  explained  by  Scripture  as  immersion,  but  many 
passages  imply  that  this  was  its  mode.  Of  this  kind  are  the  passages 
which  represent  the  persons  as  going  to  the  water,  being  baptized  in 
the  water,  and  after  baptism  coming  up  out  of  the  water.  Could  mad- 
ness itself  allege  any  other  reason  for  this,  than  that  baptism  was  an 
immersion  of  the  body  ?  Even  if  it  should  be  supposed  a  washing  of 
the  body  without  reference  to  mode,  it  is  equally  fatal  to  purify.  It 
could  not  mean  purification  in  general,  or  purification  by  a  few  drops 
of  water,  if  the  whole  person  must  be  washed.  It  must  be  a  purifica- 
tion by  washing  the  whole  body. 

The  reason  alleged  for  John's  baptizing  in  Enon,  John  iii.  23,  implies 
that  baptism  was  immersion.  Had  any  mode  of  purification  by  water 
been  sufficient,  there  would  have  been  no  need  for  many  waters,  or 
much  water. 

Christ  refers  to  his  death  as  a  baptism  in  a  figurative  sense ;  but  if 
the  word  in  a  figurative  sense  signifies  afflictions,  the  literal  sense  can- 
not be  anything  but  immersion.  Neither  purify,  nor  sprinkle,  nor  any 
other  supposed  meaning,  will  admit  the  figurative  meaning,  of  afflictions, 
or  calamities.  This  is  the  figure  also  by  which  the  calamities  of  the 
Saviour  are  figuratively  designated  in  the  Psalms.  He  is  represented 
as  overwhelmed  with  great  waters. 

PASSAGES  WHICH  ALLUDE  TO  BAPTISM  AS  AN  IMMERSION. 

There  are  many  passages  of  Scripture  which  allude  to  baptism  in  such 
a  way  as  to  show  that  immerse  was  its  mode.  Of  this  kind  is  John  iii. 
5,  a  passage  the  misunderstanding  of  which  has  laid  a  foundation  for  the 
grossest  superstitions  of  nominal  Christianity.  To  be  born  of  water 
most  evidently  implies,  that  water  is  the  womb  out  of  which  the  person 
who  is  born  proceeds.  That  this  is  the  reference  of  the  figure,  whatever 
may  be  supposed  to  be  its  meaning,  cannot  for  a  moment  be  doubted  by 
any  reflecting  mind.  Here  the  figure  must  signify  the  washing  of  the 
believer  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  which  is  figuratively  represented  by  the 
water  in  baptism.  This  our  Lord  stated  in  a  figurative  manner,  as  he 
did  other  things,  which  were  more  clearly  to  be  exhibited  in  the  teach 
ing  of  his  apostles.  Who  can  doubt  that  it  is  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ 
that  washes  away  the  sins  of  the  believer  ? 

Many  persons  on  both  sides  of  the  question  are  unwilling  to  allow  any 
allusion  to  baptism  here,  in  order  to  avoid  the  supposed  consequence, 
that  it  would  imply  the  necessity  of  baptism  to  salvation.  It  has  always 
appeared  to  me  that  candour  cannot  deny  that  there  is  an  allusion  to 


FIRST    REPLY   TO   PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  477 

baptism ;  and  I  will  never,  for  fear  of  the  consequences,  refuse  to  admit 
anything  that  appears  to  be  in  evidence.  But  no  such  consequences  can 
flow  from  this  admission.  In  whatever  way  its  reference  may  be  ex- 
plained, it  cannot  possibly  imply  that  baptism  is  essential  to  salvation. 
Were  this  the  case,  then  it  would  not  always  be  necessarily  true  that 
faith  is  salvation.  Were  this  true,  it  would  imply  that  an  external  work 
performed  by  man  is  necessary  to  salvation.  I  need  not  state  the 
thousandth  part  of  the  absurdity  that  would  flow  from  this  doctrine. 
Whatever  is  the  truth  of  the  matter,  this  cannot  be  true ;  it  is  contrary 
to  the  whole  current  of  Scripture.  One  fact  will  by  example  prove  that 
baptism  is  not  necessary  to  salvation :  the  thief  who  believed  on  the 
cross  was  saved  without  baptism.  This  single  fact  will  for  ever  forbid 
such  a  meaning  to  be  taken  out  of  this  passage. 

Having,  then,  in  the  most  satisfactory  manner  ascertained  from  Scrip- 
ture that  baptism  cannot  be  essential  to  salvation,  we  may  next  examine 
what  is  the  figurative  import  of  this  expression,  bom  of  water.  To  be 
bom  of  water,  then,  as  a  figurative  expression,  signifies  to  be  washed  or 
cleansed  from  our  sins.  In  what  we  are  to  be  washed  we  must  learn 
from  other  parts  of  Scripture,  which  teach  us  that  we  are  to  be  washed 
in  the  blood  of  Christ. 

The  objection  which  naturally  presents  itself  to  the  considering  of  the 
water,  in  reference  to  the  thing  signified  by  the  water,  is,  that  this  is 
supposed  to  be  immediately  added — "  and  of  the  Spirit."  It  is  supposed 
that  bom  of  the  Spirit  is  the  thing  signified  by  born  of  zvater.  But  this 
is  not  the  case ;  to  be  born  of  the  Spirit  is  not  the  thing  signified  by 
the  figure  bom  of  water.  The  water  in  baptism  is  not  the  emblem  of 
the  Spirit,  but  of  the  blood  of  Christ.  The  Spirit  washes  us,  not  as 
being  himself  like  water,  but  as  the  agent  who  uses  the  water  by  which 
we  are  cleansed,  that  is,  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  Let  a  man  understand 
this,  and  he  will  cease  to  feel  difficulty  on  this  passage.  To  be  bom  of 
water,  and  to  be  born  of  the  Spirit,  are  expressions  which  do  not  refer 
to  the  same  thing.  The  one  refers  to  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  the  other 
to  the  Spirit  who  is  the  agent  of  the  spiritual  birth,  and  of  the  washing 
away  of  sins  through  the  application  of  Christ's  blood.  We  must  be 
born  both  of  the  blood  of  Christ  and  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  in  the  blood  of 
Christ  that  the  Spirit  washes  us.  There  is  the  washing  in  Christ's  blood, 
and  also  the  renewing  of  the  Spirit. 

Let  it  be  observed,  that  though  this  passage  alludes  to  baptism  as  the 
foundation  of  the  figure  which  it  employs,  yet  baptism  is  only  alluded 
to— not  mentioned.  It  is  not  said  that  except  a  man  is  baptized  he 
cannot  be  saved ;  but,  except  he  is  bom  of  water.  Now  figuratively 
considered,  a  man  may  be  born  of  water  without  having  water  literally 
applied  to  him.  He  is  born  of  water  when  he  is  washed  from  sin, 
in  whatever  way  sin  is  to  be  washed  away.  There  are  many  figurative 
expressions  of  this  nature — and  on  this  fact  I  will  venture  to  rest 
the  whole  solution  of  the  difficulty.  When  poets  are  said  to  drink 
of  the  Castalian  springs,  the  figure  is  perfectly  the  same :  there  is  no 
real  drinking :  it  is  the  supposed  reception  of  the  spirit  of  poetry.  So 
in  being  bom  of  water — the  thing  meant  is  the  being  washed  in  the 


478  FIRST   REPLY   TO   PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

blood  of  Christ.  If  a  person  presents  us  with  a  specimen  of  his  poetry, 
which  we  do  not  approve ;  may  we  not  answer  that  except  a  man  drink 
of  the  Castalian  springs,  he  will  never  be  a  poet  1  Do  we  mean  literal 
drinking  at  the  place  1 

-  That  this  is  the  true  explanation  of  the  passage,  we  have  infallible  evi- 
dence. I  can  produce  an  inspired  commentator  to  warrant  my  solution 
of  this  difficulty.  Christ  gave  himself  for  the  church,  "  that  he  might 
sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the  word."  Eph.  v. 
26.  Here  it  is  expressly  said,  that  the  washing  of  water  is  by  the  word. 
The  word  is  the  means  by  which  the  believer  is  washed  in  the  blood  of 
Christ.  The  whole  church  is  supposed  to  be  washed  in  this  way.  The 
believer,  then,  is  washed  by  the  word,  even  although,  from  ignorance  of 
his  duty,  or  from  want  of  opportunity,  he  has  never  been  washed  in 
water.  I  may  observe,  also,  that  this  is  another  passage  of  Scripture 
which  alludes  to  baptism  as  a  washing  of  the  whole  person.  A  purification 
with  a  few  drops  of  water  would  not  suit  the  phraseology.  Here  I  ob- 
serve, also,  that  sanctification  and  cleansing,  or  purification  and  washing, 
are  considered  as  different  from  each  other.  Sanctification  and  purifi- 
cation are  not  exactly  coincident ;  nor  is  either  of  them  coincident  with 
washing;  they  are  all  effected  by  the  instrumentality  of  the  word. 

"  But  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye  are  justified,  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God."  I  Cor.  vi.  11. 
Here  also  washing  and  sanctification  are  distinguished;  and  both  are 
effected  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God. 
Faith  in  Christ  is  that  through  which  they  are  washed ;  and  the  Spirit 
of  our  God  is  the  agent  who  washes  them  by  this  means.  This  washing 
is  represented  in  baptism,  to  which  this  passage  refers. 

In  Rev.  i.  5,  Christ  is  said  to  wash  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood. 
Christ  washes  us  by  his  Spirit  in  his  blood;  but  his  blood  is  the  cleansing 
element  in  which  we  are  washed.  This  shows  that  to  be  born  of  water 
is  to  be  washed  in  the  blood  of  Christ. 

When  Paul  says :  *  My  little  children,  of  whom  I  travail  in  birth 
again  until  Christ  be  formed  in  you,"  Gal.  iv.  19,  is  there  any  literal 
travailing  in  birth ?  "I  bare  you  on  eagles'  wings,"  Exodus  xix. 4,  is  a 
similar  figure.  Would  a  child  understand  it  literally?  Gill  shows  very 
bad  taste,  when  he  supposes  that  it  is  necessary  to  supply  as,  the  note  of 
similitude,  to  prevent  it  from  being  understood  in  the  literal  meaning. 
Why  then  should  there  be  a  literal  washing  with  water  in  the  phrase 
born  of  water? 

Is  not  the  phrase  born  of  God  figurative,  referring  to  that  spiritual 
birth  of  which  God  is  the  author,  and  in  which  he  is  our  Father  ?  So 
born  of  water  is  that  birth  which  is  represented  by  being  immersed  in 
water. 

The  heart  is  said  to  be  purified  by  faith,  Acts  xv.  9.  Now,  if  faith 
purifies  the  heart,  the  water  in  baptism  cannot  be  essential  to  the  purifi- 
cation. It  must  be  an  emblem — not  a  means.  The  purification  is 
effected  without  it,  and  before  its  application. 

It  is  on  a  good  conscience  produced  by  faith  in  Christ,  as  distinguished 
from  the  external  washing,  that  Peter  places  the  value:  1  Peter  iii.  21 


FIRST   REPLY   TO   PRESIDENT  BEECHER.  479 

"  Seeing,"  says  Peter,  "  ye  have  purified  your  souls  in  obeying  the 
truth  through  the  Spirit."  1  Peter  i.  22.  It  is  the  belief  of  the  truth, 
then,  that  purines  the  soul — not  the  water  of  baptism.  This  purification 
is  effected  by  the  Spirit :  he  is  the  agent,  and  the  truth  is  the  instrument. 
The  water  is  an  emblem ;  but  whether  it  has  place  or  not,  it  has  no 
share  in  the  effect,  either  as  an  efficient,  or  as  an  instrument.  "  Being 
born  again,"  says  he,  "  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by 
the  word  of  God."  In  the  whole  process  of  the  spiritual  birth  the  word 
of  God  is  the  only  means,  as  the  Spirit  is  the  only  agent.  In  Heb.  x. 
22,  believers  are  said  to  have  their  bodies  washed  with  pure  water.  This 
must  be  an  allusion  to  baptism ;  and  what  could  answer  to  this  but  im- 
mersion ?  It  is  a  bathing  of  the  whole  body.  Purification  could  not 
correspond  to  this.  No  application  of  water  but  a  washing  of  the  whole 
person  could  suit  this  language. 

"  Not  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  according 
to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Here  the  washing  of  regeneration  is  expressly 
distinguished  from  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  What  in  John  iii. 
5,  is  called  born  of  water,  is  here  called  the  washing  of  regeneration ; 
and  what  is  there  called  born  of  the  Spirit,  is  here  called  the  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Born  of  water,  then,  and  born  of  the  Spirit,  are 
two  distinct  things ;  and  born  of  the  Spirit  is  not,  as  many  suppose,  the 
explanation  or  meaning  of  born  of  water.  The  washing  of  regeneration 
is  the  washing  that  takes  place  when  we  are  born  again  of  the  incorrupt- 
ible seed  of  the  word,  or  by  the  belief  of  the  truth.  We  are  washed 
by  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ.  This  washing  takes  place  before  baptism, 
and  there  must  be  evidence  that  it  has  taken  place,  before  any  person  is 
entitled  to  be  emblematically  washed  in  baptism.  The  person  who  is 
thus  washed  is  also  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  We  are  regenerated  by 
faith,  and  not  by  the  rite  of  baptism.  Baptism  is  an  emblem  of  this 
washing  and  regeneration. 

Those  who  would  reduce  the  conversion  of  sinners  unto  God,  to  a 
sort  of  religious  manufacture,  understand  the  washing  of  regeneration 
here,  to  be  the  rite  of  baptism.  But  though  they  have  the  support  of 
the  superstition  of  the  Fathers,  they  have  not  the  authority  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  apostles.  The  Scriptures  never  speak  of  baptism  as  regeneration: 
regeneration  is  the  act  of  God — not  the  effect  of  a  rite  performed  by 
man.  The  apostle  is,  in  this  passage,  asserting  salvation  by  mercy,  in 
express  opposition  to  works  of  righteousness  of  our  own.  In  asserting, 
then,  that  we  are  saved  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  he  cannot  mean 
we  are  saved  by  a  work  performed  on  us  by  human  hands. 

But  if  it  is  a  truth,  that  in  this  passage  the  washing  of  regeneration 
is  the  rite  of  baptism,  and  not  the  doctrine  of  which  baptism  is  the  em- 
blem, it  is  a  very  melancholy  truth  with  respect  to  most  of  those  who 
believe  it.  They  are  not  baptized.  No  person  is  baptized  who  is  not 
immersed;  and  no  person  is  baptized  with  Christ's  baptism,  who  is  not 
baptized  as  a  believer.  The  great  multitude,  then,  of  those  who  speak 
of  the  necessity  of  baptism  to  salvation  from  the  authority  of  this  pas- 
sage, are,  according  to  their  own  view  of  it,  condemned  by  it.     But 


480  FIRST    REPLY  TO   PRESIDENT   BEECHER. 

although  every  believer  ought  to  be  urged  with  all  the  authority  of  Jesus, 
to  submit  to  all  his  commandments,  yet  neither  ignorance  of  them,  nor 
want  of  opportunity  to  observe  them,  will  exclude  them  from  his  favour. 
No  ordinance  of  Christ  ought  ever  to  be  put  in  the  room  of  Christ.  I 
will  fight  the  battle  of  baptism  with  all  zeal ;  but  I  will  acknowledge,  in 
the  greatest  heat  of  my  zeal,  the  worst  instructed  of  all  the  disciples  of 
Christ.  To  set  at  nought  the  very  least  of  them,  is  to  insult  Christ 
himself. 

The  reference  to  baptism  in  this  passage  is  decisive  of  its  mode :  it 
refers  to  the  washing  at  the  birth  of  an  infant.  Both  the  things  referred 
to,  and  the  word  translated  washing,  imply  that  the  whole  body  is  covered 
with  water  in  baptism. 

DISSERTATION  ON  LOUO. 

Section  XII. — The  philosophical  linguist,  Dr.  Campbell,  of  Aberdeen, 
in  distinguishing  the  words  louo  and  nipto,  makes  the  first  signify  to 
wash  or  bathe  the  whole  body,  the  last  to  wash  or  bathe  a  part.  This 
distinction  has  been  generally  recognised  since  the  time  of  Dr.  Camp- 
bell. Mr.  Beecher  calls  it  in  question,  yet  he  does  not  touch  the  subject 
with  the  hand  of  a  master.  He  merely  alleges  an  objection  which  he 
thinks  calculated  to  bring  confusion  into  what  is  thought  to  be  clear  ; 
but  he  gives  no  additional  light  by  any  learned  observation  of  his  own. 
I  shall  endeavour  to  settle  this  question  by  evidence,  founded  on  the 
practice  of  the  language,  as  well  as  the  practice  of  the  New  Testament. 
I  shall  as  much  as  possible  avoid  the  technicalities  of  criticism,  and  as 
little  as  possible  disfigure  my  page  with  Greek  quotation.  I  request  the 
merely  English  reader  to  understand  that  I  intend  to  carry  him  along, 
with  me.  There  is  very  little  real  criticism  which  may  not  be  made 
obvious  to  good  sense,  without  the  knowledge  of  the  language  which  the 
criticism  respects.  All  that  my  unlearned  reader  will  be  obliged  to  take 
on  trust,  is  the  fairness  of  my  references  to  my  authorities ;  and  for  this 
he  has  the  security  that  I  am  open  to  the  assault  of  all  my  enemies,  if  I 
unfairly  represent. 

Dr.  Campbell's  distinction  in  the  use  of  the  two  words  referred  to,  is 
well  founded  on  fact,  but  he  has  scarcely  reached  the  exact  truth.  It  is 
this  that  lays  his  doctrine  open  to  the  objection  of  Mr.  Beecher.  That 
this  distinction  in  the  use  of  these  words  is  fairly  made  out  by  the  ex- 
amples alleged  by  Dr.  Campbell,  and  by  the  practice  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  Septuagint,  is  a  fact  that  cannot  be  overturned.  That  it  is  a 
fact  established  by  classical  authority,  I  will  show  afterwards.  But  the 
reason  alleged  for  this  usage  by  Dr.  Campbell  is  not  the  true  reason.  It 
is  not  because  one  of  the  words  signifies  to  wash  or  bathe  a  part,  and 
the  other  signifies  to  wash  or  bathe  the  whole  body :  the  difference  is  in 
the  action  of  the  verbs ;  they  are  not  the  same  washing.  One  of  them 
may  most  generally  be  translated  by  our  word  ?vash,  though  icash  is 
rather  general  for  it ;  and  the  other  may  almost  always  be  translated  by 
our  word  bathe,  though  we  sometimes  translate  it  also  by  wash.  In  the 
one,  the  washing  is  by  the  pressure  and  motion  of  the  water  without 
manual  operation,  as  in  our  word  bathe,  yet  this  bathing  may  also  be 


FIRST    REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER.  4S1 

accompanied  with  washing  by  the  hand,  though  it  is  not  signified  by  it. 
In  the  other,  the  action  of  the  hand  in  the  washing  is  almost  always 
necessary.  Now  this  is  the  reason  why  the  one  is  generally  applied  to 
the  bathing  of  the  whole  body,  and  the  other  to  the  washing  of  a  part; 
because  the  body  is  generally  bathed  in  this  manner,  and  the  hands 
or  the  feet  are  generally  washed  with  the  operation  of  the  hands.  One 
plunge  in  a  river  is  a  bathing ;  but  when  the  hands  are  washed,  friction 
is  generally  necessary ;  a  mere  bathing  is  not  sufficient.  Now,  while 
this  accounts  for  the  fact  asserted  by  Dr.  Campbell,  it  will  also  allow  the 
possibility  of  the  application  of  nijpto  to  the  whole  body,  if  it  must  be  all 
successively  washed ;  and  it  will  allow  the  application  of  louo  to  a  part,  if 
the  part  is  specified.  Accordingly,  we  find  in  the  first  Idyl  of  Bion,  that 
when  Adonis  was  wounded  by  a  boar,  some  bring  water  in  golden 
caldrons — others  bathe  his  thighs,  one  of  the  parts  in  which  he  was 
wounded.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  even  here  they  must  have  put 
him  in  a  bath  for  this  operation.  Yet  this  does  not  at  all  disturb  the 
fact  as  to  the  practice  alleged  by  Dr.  Campbell,  had  he  placed  that  fact 
on  its  true  foundation.  The  criticism  is  this,  and  if  I  mistake  not,  the 
criterion  will  suit  every  occurrence :  the  verb,  when  it  has  no  regimen 
supplied  by  the  context,  always  refers  to  the  bathing  of  the  whole  body ; 
when  it  refers  to  a  part,  the  context  must  supply  the  part.  This  obser- 
vation will  guide  the  reader  through  the  whole  practice  of  the  Greek 
language.  If  every  part  of  the  body  requires  the  washing  that  this  word 
imports,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  the  application  of  nipto. 

We  make  the  same  distinction  in  the  use  of  our  word  bathe.  When 
the  physician  directs  his  patient  to  bathe,  without  giving  the  verb  any 
regimen,  every  one  understands  it  to  be  a  bathing  of  the  whole  body. 
Yet  we  also  speak  of  bathing  the  feet 

There  is  another  distinction  between  these  verbs,  to  which  I  have 
observed  no  exception.  Louo,  like  our  word  bathe,  applies  to  animal 
bodies  only :  we  do  not  speak  of  bathing  cloth. 

Now  to  confirm  this  doctrine  by  examples.  Nothing  but  the  authority 
of  the  practice  of  the  language,  can  be  of  any  weight.  If  I  have  not 
thought  it  too  laborious  to  collect  my  examples,  my  readers  must  not 
think  that  I  call  them  to  hard  duty,  when  I  demand  their  patience  to 
attend  to  them.  No  labour  can  be  too  much  to  settle  the  meaning  of  the 
commandments  of  God.  This  can  be  known  only  from  the  meaning  of 
the  language  in  which  they  are  revealed. 

Let  us  begin  with  Hesiod.  The  distinction  which  Dr.  Campbell  points 
out  in  the  New  Testament  and  Septuagint  is  as  strongly  marked  in  the 
second  book  of  the  Works  and  Days.  Several  examples  occur  between 
lines  343  and  371.  He  forbids  to  pour  out  black  wine  to  Jupiter  in  the 
morning  with  unwashed  hands.  He  enjoins  the  washing  of  the  hands 
before  passing  through  a  stream  of  running  water,  and  speaks  of  the 
danger  of  unwashed  hands. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  speaking  of  the  whole  body,  he  forbids  to 
bathe  in  vessels  not  purified,  and  men  he  forbids  to  wash  their  bodies  in 
a  woman's  bath.  The  word  used  is  loutron.  What,  then,  is  the  loutron 
when  applied  to  baptism  1     Let  the  most  unlearned  judge  from  this. 

61 


482  FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  Theogony,  Hesiod  speaks  of  the  Muses  of 
Helicon,  as  bathing  their  tender  bodies  in  the  fountain  of  Termessus, 
loessamenai. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  testimony  of  Herodotus.  He  tells  us,  p.  54, 
that  Cyrus  commanded  the  Persians  to  assemble  on  a  particular  occa- 
sion, lelournenois,  bathed.  Here  the  verb  has  no  regimen,  yet  its  regimen 
is  perfectly  understood.  The  distinction,  then,  is  as  clear  in  Herodotus, 
as  Dr.  Campbell  asserts  it  to  be  in  the  New  Testament  and  Septuagint. 

Speaking  of  the  Egyptians,  p.  104,  he  says  they  loimtai  (bathe)  twice 
each  day,  and  twice  each  night.  Here  the  distinction  is  also  marked, 
the  verb  having  no  regimen.  If  Mr.  B.  would  bring  this  to  the  test  of 
his  probability,  by  which  he  would  force  its  meaning  from  the  word 
baptize,  he  would  doubtless  have  much  better  reason  to  deny  that  they 
were  actually  bathed  twice  each  day  and  twice  each  night.  A  baptism 
before  dinner  after  market  he  thinks  incredible  in  the  superstition  of  a 
Jew.  What  shall  we  make  of  this  purification  of  the  Egyptians?  Many 
people  think  it  a  great  yoke  for  Christians  to  be  obliged  once  in  their 
lives  to  take  the  trouble  of  immersion  :  the  devotees  of  superstition  are 
contented  to  be  baptized  twice  every  day  and  twice  every  night. 

Speaking  of  the  Scythians  (p.  248)  he  says  that  they  use  a  certain 
fumigation  instead  of  the  bath,  loutrou;  adding,  that  they  never  bathe 
the  body  with  water;  but  the  women  pouring  out  water  and  making  a 
certain  preparation,  daub  themselves  all  over  with  it. 

Heraclides,  as  cited  in  the  Appendix  to  Herodotus,  (p.  594,)  observes 
that  the  attendants  on  the  king  of  Persia,  at  supper,  ministered  after 
being  bathed,  leloumenoi.  Here  the  same  distinction  is  recognised.  The 
verb  without  a  regimen  refers  to  the  washing  of  the  person. 

Ctesias,  as  cited  in  the  same  Appendix,  (p.  664,)  asserts  that  the  wives 
of  the  Cynocephali,  or  dog-headed  Indians,  lountai  (bathe)  once  a  month ; 
and  that  the  men  do  not  bathe  at  all,  but  only  wash  their  hands,  aponi- 
zontai.  Here  the  distinctive  use  of  the  two  verbs  is  clearly  and  strongly 
marked ;  and  the  verb  which  refers  to  bathing  has  no  regimen. 

The  same  writer  (p.  666)  mentions  a  fountain  in  which  the  Indians 
of  distinction,  men,  women,  and  children,  lountai,  bathe,  for  the  purpose 
of  purification,  and  the  expulsion  of  diseases.  Here  we  see  that  the 
word  refers  to  the  bathing  of  the  person;  and  that  people  bathed  not  only 
at,  but  in,  the  holy  well.  He  tells  us  also  that  they  all  swam  in  it,  as 
they  could  not,  on  account  of  the  nature  of  the  water,  sink  in  it. 

Hippocrates  affords  us  many  examples  which  definitely  ascertain  the 
distinctive  meaning  of  this  word ;  and  precision  of  meaning  is  nowhere 
so  exact  as  in  medical  language,  with  respect  to  words  which  designate 
the  application  of  fluids.  He  tells  us,  (p.  26,)  that  in  summer  it  is  neces- 
sary to  use  many  baths,  or  frequent  bathings ;  in  winter,  fewer ;  and  that 
it  is  more  necessary  for  the  morose  to  be  bathed,  than  for  the  corpulent. 
Here  loutron  and  loucsasthoi,  without  any  regimen,  refer  to  the  bathing 
of  the  whole  body. 

In  a  certain  case  he  directs  (p.  159)  to  bathe  twice  or  thrice  each  day, 
except  the  head.  Nothing  can  be  more  decisive  than  this  exception.  The 
word  itself  is  supposed  so  definitely  to  refer  to  the  whole  body,  that  it  is 


FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  483 

thought  necessary  to  except  the  part  that  should  not  be  bathed.  After 
this,  who  can  doubt  that  this  word,  when  used  without  a  regimen,  refers 
to  the  bathing  of  the  person  1  And  would  any  one,  in  fulfilling  this 
medical  prescription,  rub  a  little  water  over  the  body,  instead  of  putting 
the  body  in  the  water,  as  Mr.  Beecher  fulfils  the  law  of  Moses? 

That  the  word  may,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  Dr.  Campbell,  be 
applied  to  the  bathing  of  a  part,  the  two  following  examples  leave  no 
doubt ;  and  I  conceal  no  part  of  the  truth.  For  pains  in  the  head,  Hip- 
pocrates tells  us  that  it  is  profitable  to  warm  the  head  thoroughly,  bathing 
it  with  much  warm  water,  &c.  In  the  same  passage  he  says,  "  If  the 
pain  falls  into  the  ears,  it  is  profitable  to  bathe  them  with  much  warm 
water."  Here,  however,  the  regimen  is  supplied  by  the  connexion ; 
and  the  part  which  is  the  object  of  the  action  of  the  verb  is  all  covered 
with  the  water.  Even  in  such  cases  as  this,  the  complete  covering  of  the 
object  by  the  fluid  is  as  clearly  seen  as  when  the  whole  body  is  the  object 
of  the  bathing. 

In  the  case  of  tenesmus,  (p.  184,)  he  orders  to  bathe  with  warm  water, 
except  the  head.  Here  the  word  louein  without  any  regimen  refers  to 
the  body ;  and  as  there  is  a  part  which  must  not  be  bathed,  that  part 
must  be  expressly  excepted.  Surely  this  is  decisive  of  the  distinctive 
meaning  of  this  word.  In  the  same  passage  he  speaks  of  "  softening 
the  body  with  warm  baths,  except  the  head." 

In  page  376,  he  gives  us  a  whole  treatise  on  bathing,  referring  to 
almost  every  thing  in  the  process,  and  showing  when  it  is  useful,  and 
when  injurious.  The  vat,  or  vessel,  in  which  the  bathing  is  effected,  is 
called  puelos ;  and  to  this  the  verb  louein  and  the  noun  loutron  are  con- 
stantly applied  without  any  regimen. 

The  usage  of  Homer  makes  the  same  distinction  in  these  words; 
and  louo,  without  a  regimen  supplied  by  the  connexion,  always  refers  to 
the  person.  His  baths  for  his  heroes  after  battle,  and  after  death,  are 
well  known,  and  uniformly  conform  to  this  distinction.  It  is  so  clearly 
marked  in  the  tenth  book  of  the  Iliad,  that  were  there  not  another  pas- 
sage, this  is  sufficient  to  establish  it.  In  the  beautiful  language  of 
Cowper  it  is — 

"Then,  descending  to  the  sea, 
Neck,  thighs,  and  legs  from  sweat  profuse  they  cleansed, 
And,  so  refreshed  and  purified,  their  last 
Ablution  in  bright  tepid  baths  performed. 
Each  then  completely  laved,  and  with  smooth  oil 
Anointed,  at  the  well-spread  board  they  sat, 
And  quaffed,  in  honour  of  Minerva,  wine 
Delicious,  froii  the  brimming  beaker  drawn." 

Here  the  heroes,  returning  from  slaughter,  go  down  into  the  ocean 
and  wash  off  the  sweat,  apcnizonto.  A  mere  bathing  would  not  be  suffi- 
cient ;  the  gore  must  be  washed  off  by  rubbing — much  rubbing ;  and 
in  my  judgment,  the  adverb  pollon  ought  to  be  joined  with  the  verb,  as 
designating  much  washing,  and  not  with  the  word  sweat,  according  to 
Cowper.  This,  however,  is  not  material  to  the  point  which  I  have  now 
in  hand.  It  is  evident  that  the  poet,  in  designating  the  action  of  cleans- 
ing the  person  by  hand-washing,  uses  the  verb  niptn.  Neck,  thighs,  and 
legs  are  specified,  because  these  are  the  parts  defiled.     But  there  is  no 


484  FIRST   REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

reason  to  allege,  according  to  Dr.  Campbell's  ground  of  the  distinction, 
that  if  every  part  of  the  body  had  been  so  washed  with  the  hand,  the 
same  verb  could  not  have  been  used.  Indeed  the  wave  is  expressly  said 
to  wash  the  body  from  its  filth,  nipsen  apo  chrotos. 

In  the  next  place,  after  this  washing  in  the  sea,  they  went  into  the 
baths,  and  were  bathed,  lousanto.  Nothing  can  more  clearly  manifest  a 
distinction  in  the  use  of  these  words,  and  prove  that  the  distinction  is 
what  I  have  alleged. 

In  the  twenty-third  book  of  the  Iliad  he  applies  the  word  to  the 
horses  of  Achilles.  Speaking  of  Patroclus,  the  poet,  according  to  the 
translation  of  Cowper,  says — 

"Who  many  a  time  hath  cleansed 
Their  manes  with  water  of  the  crystal  brook, 
And  made  them  sleek  himself  with  limpid  oil." 

Here  the  translator  applies  the  word  to  the  manes  of  the  horses ;  but 
I  think  it  ought  to  be  applied  to  the  horses  themselves.  Literally  it  is, 
"  he  poured  limpid  oil  on  their  manes,  having  bathed  in  pure  water." 
Now  the  regimen  to  bathe  may  be  either  the  manes  of  the  horses,  or  the 
horses  themselves ;  and  there  is  every  reason  to  make  it  the  horses. 
The  horses  appear  first  to  have  been  bathed  in  the  river ;  and  after  this 
their  manes  were  anointed  with  oil  to  make  them  shine.  I  have  no 
objection  that  the  word  should  be  applied  to  a  part ;  but  I  think  it  would 
hardly  be  applied  to  the  washing  of  hair.  This  interpretation  is  con- 
firmed by  a  passage  in  the  fifteenth  book,  in  which,  referring  to  Hector, 
the  poet  says — 

"As  some  stalled  horse  high-pampered,  snapping  short 
His  cord,  beats  under  foot  the  sounding  soil, 
Accustomed  in  smooth-sliding  streams  to  lave 
Exulting." 

Here  we  see  it  was  usual  to  bathe  horses  in  rivers 

In  the  third  book  of  the  Odyssey  the  word  is  used  with  respect  to  the 
bathing  of  Telemachus  in  a  bath.  When  he  had  bathed,  he  is  repre- 
sented as  going  out  of  the  bath. 

In  the  sixth  book,  both  the  words  are  employed  with  respect  to  Ulysses 
washing  in  the  river  after  his  shipwreck.  This  was  both  a  bathing  and 
a  hand-washing.  Here  the  apolouo  is  applied  to  his  shoulders,  which 
shows  that  it  may  be  applied  to  a  part :  and  nipto  is  applied  to  the  body 
in  general.  He  teashed  the  brine  from  his  body.  This  shows  that  the 
distinction  is  not  what  it  is  made  by  Dr.  Campbell,  though  that,  in  every 
instance,  there  is  a  distinction  cannot  be  doubted. 

In  the  eighth  book,  Ulysses  is  bathed  at  the  house  of  Alcinous.  Louo 
is  the  word  several  times  used,  and  he  is  represented  as  going  into  the 
bath,  and  coming  out  of  it. 

In  the  tenth  book,  in  the  house  of  Circe,  the  hero  is  again  led  to  the 
bath ;  and  warm  water  is  plenteously  poured  on  his  head  and  shoulders, 
until  he  is  completely  refreshed ;  and  after  he  was  clothed  and  seated  on 
his  throne,  a  nymph  brings  water  for  his  hands.  Here  nipto  is  used 
without  the  regimen — the  word  hands  being  understood  in  the  use  of 
the  verb,  as  Dr.  Campbell  observes  on  John  ix.  7. 


FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  485 

In  the  seventeenth  book,  Telemachus  leads  Piraeus,  the  messenger  of 
Menelaus,  into  his  house,  and  they  bathe  before  the  banquet.  Water 
was  also  ministered  for  the  washing  of  the  hands  after  they  were  clothed 
and  seated.  If  Cowper,  when  he  translates  the  passage  thus, — "And 
plunged  his  feet  into  a  polished  bath,"  means  that  only  the  foot-bath  was 
used,  he  is  undoubtedly  in  error.  They  are  represented  as  themselves 
going  into  the  bath,  and  coming  out  of  it ;  .and  the  word  louo  without  a 
regimen  implies  this.  Perhaps  the  translator  takes  this  way  to  express 
their  going  into  the  bath. 

In  the  nineteenth  book,  the  command  of  Penelope  with  respect  to 
Ulysses  as  a  beggar,  which  Cowper  translates,  "  Give  him  the  bath,  my 
maidens;  then  spread  his  couch,"  it  is  undoubtedly  the  foot-bath  that  is 
meant.  The  verb  is  aponipsate  without  a  regimen.  "Attend  him  also 
at  the  peep  of  day  with  bath  and  unction."  This  refers  to  the  bathing 
of  the  whole  body.  He  was  to  be  bathed  and  anointed  before  breakfast- 
ing with  Telemachns.  That  it  was  the  foot-bath  that  was  meant  in  the 
first  part  of  the  sentence,  is  clear  from  the  reply  of  Ulysses: 

"  Nor  me  the  foot-bath  pleases  more  ;  my  feet 
Shall  none  of  all  thy  minist'ring  maidens  touch, 
Unless  there  be  some  ancient  matron  grave 
Among  them,  who  hath  pangs  of  heart  endured 
Num'rous  and  keen  as  I  have  felt  myself; 
Her  I  refuse  not.    She  may  touch  my  feet." 

It  was  actually  the  foot-bath  that  was  used  on  this  occasion,  and  his  feet 
only  were  washed  by  his  nurse,  for  which  nipto  is  the  verb  used. 

Simonides,  concerning  women,  represents  one  as  unbathed  and  un- 
leashed in  garments,  aloutos,  aplutos,  with  characteristic  reference.  He 
speaks  of  another  as  bathed  twice  and  sometimes  thrice  every  day.  Here 
the  verb  has  no  regimen,  yet  definitely  refers  to  the  whole  body. 

^Elian,  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  book  of  his  Var.  Hist.,  speaks  of 
certain  springs  in  Tempe,  whose  waters  are  good,  lousamenois,  to  those 
who  are  bathed  in  them.  He  speaks  also,  in  the  thirteenth  book,  of  an 
eagle  snatching  the  slipper  of  Rodope  the  Egyptian,  while  she  was 
bathing,  carrying  it  to  Memphis,  and  dropping  it  on  the  bosom  of 
Psammitichios  sitting  on  the  judgment  seat.  The  word  louomenes  is 
twice  used  without  a  regimen  to  designate  the  bathing  of  the  person. 

Nicolas  of  Damascus  tells  us  that  the  king  of  Babylon  ordered  one  of 
his  eunuchs  to  bathe  a  certain  person  twice  a-day.  He  uses  the  word 
louo  without  a  regimen,  as  definitely  importing  the  bathing  of  the  whole 
body.  He  tells  us  also  of  a  certain  usurer,  who  ordered  Croesus  to  wait 
at  the  door,  until  the  usurer  should  bathe  himself.  Here  also  the  same 
verb  is  used  with  reference  to  the  whole  body,  without  any  regimen. 
He  speaks  of  the  Dardani,  an  Ulyrian  nation,  as  being  bathed  only  three 
times  in  their  lives — when  they  are  born,  when  they  are  married,  and 
when  they  die.  Here  the  word  is  used  without  any  regimen ;  and 
nothing  can  more  definitely  show  its  distinctive  meaning. 

Arrian,  (p.  165,)  giving  an  account  of  the  last  illness  of  Alexander 
the  Great,  uses  the  word  ten  times  in  conformity  with  the  distinction 
I  have  assigned.     After  his  debauch  he  bathed  and  slept.     Again  he 


486  FIRST    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

supped,  drank  till  far  in  the  night,  and  afterwards  bathed,  ate  a  little, 
and  slept.  He  was  several  times  bathed  during  his  fever,  and  usually 
bathed  before  sacrifice.  Homer's  heroes  sometimes  wash  their  hands 
before  prayer,  and  before  meat.  Telemachus  walking  along  the  beach, 
having  washed  his  hands  in  the  hoary  sea,  prayed  to  Minerva.  Odys.  ii. 
Ulysses  and  his  companions,  having  washed  their  hands,  feasted  on  the 
stag.     Odys.  x. 

The  Essenes,  Josephus  informs  us,  (p.  728,)  after  working  for  some 
hours  in  the  morning,  assemble  in  one  place,  and  girding  themselves 
with  linen  veils,  bathe  before  dinner.  Here  we  see  a  daily  baptism  by 
a  whole  sect  of  the  Jews.  Mr.  Beecher  thinks  a  baptism  after  market 
incredible  in  Jewish  superstition. 

Justin  Martyr  not  only  always  uses  the  word  conformably  to  this 
distinction,  but,  speaking  of  the  pagan  purifications  invented  by  the 
demons  in  imitation  of  baptism,  he  showed  that  they  used  the  washing 
of  the  whole  body  as  the  most  complete  purification,  p.  91. 

Eusebius,  speaking  of  Simon  Magus,  represents  him  as  continuing  his 
hypocrisy  even  to  the  bath,  meckri  loutron,  p.  12;  and  the  places  where 
the  Christians  usually  baptized,  he  calls  loutra,  bathing-places. 

Lucian,  in  the  dialogue  of  Micyllus  and  the  Cock,  uses  the  word  louo 
without  a  regimen  for  bathing  in  a  bath.  He  was  invited  to  come  to  a 
feast,  having  bathed  himself.  He  speaks  also  of  his  impatience  in  wait- 
ing for  the  time  of  the  bath,  achri  loutrou.  This  determines  not  only 
the  use  of  the  word,  but  also  shows  that  it  was  customary  even  for  Gen- 
tiles to  bathe  before  dinner.     The  bath  was  a  luxury,  not  a  penance.. 

On  these  grounds,  then,  there  can  be  no  hesitation  in  maintaining  a 
distinctive  use  of  the  word  louo.  There  are  situations  in  which  either 
of  the  words  may  be  used,  because  both  of  them  are  in  their  peculiar 
meaning  applicable.  According  to  my  view  of  the  distinctive  meaning 
of  this  word,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  it  from  being  applied  to  the 
vessels  in  the  vestibule  of  ancient  churches,  for  washing  the  hands  of  the 
worshippers.  These  might  be  called  either  loitteres  or  niptcrcs,  because 
the  hands  might  be  either  bathed  or  washed.  I  have  shown  that  the 
essential  distinction  has  no  reference  to  the  whole  and  a  part ;  though 
from  circumstances  the  one  is  usually  applied  to  a  part  of  the  body,  and 
the  other  to  the  whole.  And  that  the  word  does  not  necessarily  express 
mode,  I  readily  admit.  This  must  be  determined  by  circumstances; 
though,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  immersion  is  almost  always  the  way  of  bath- 
ing. All  I  contend  for  from  this  word  is,  that  the  object  to  which  it  is 
applied  is  covered  with  the  water,  and  that  when  used  without  a  regimen 
in  the  context,  it  refers  to  the  whole  body.  The  application  of  this 
word  to  baptism  shows  that  the  rite  was  a  bathing  of  the  whole  body ; 
and  as  immersion  is  the  usual  way  of  bathing,  baptism  must  have  been 
an  immersion,  because,  when  it  is  called  a  bathing,  the  reference  would 
be  to  the  common  way  of  bathing,  not  to  a  merely  possible  way.  I 
claim,  then,  the  evidence  of  all  those  passages  in  the  New  Testament 
which  by  this  word  refer  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  I  make  a  similar 
demand  with  regard  to  the  use  of  the  word  by  the  Fathers.  Baptism, 
then,  is  immersion,  and  nothing  but  immersion  is  baptism. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

REPLY  TO  PRESIDENT  BEECHER's   ARTICLE    IN    THE    AMERICAN    BIBLICAL 

REPOSITORY. 

President  Beecher,  in  an  article  of  the  American  Biblical  Repo- 
sitory, complains  loudly  of  the  severity  of  my  attack  on  his  theory  of  the 
meaning  of  the  word  baptizo.  He  has  paraded  a  great  number  of 
extracts  as  evidence  of  a  bad  spirit.  Now,  every  one  of  these  extracts 
I  recognise,  and  I  make  the  charge  of  incompetence  against  him  more 
strongly  than  ever :  but,  in  those  extracts,  I  deny  the  existence  of  the 
smallest  degree  of  bad  spirit.  I  act  upon  principle  solemnly  and  deli- 
berately. My  design  is  to  show  my  unlearned  readers  what  account 
they  are  to  make  of  his  discoveries  in  a  balloon  above  the  clouds,  from  a 
specimen  of  what  he  has  done  before  their  own  eyes.  In  questioning  a 
decision  of  a  court  of  law,  is  it  not  proper  to  show  that  they  who  made 
the  decision  are  men  without  discrimination,  and  without  accurate  know- 
ledge of  the  law?  If  such  a  case  is  made  out,  has  it  not  the  nature  of 
evidence?  In  like  manner,  when  we  ask  who  are  our  opponents,  and 
assert  that  all  the  illustrious  scholars  of  all  ages  and  countries  are  on  our 
side,  our  design  is  not  wantonly  to  wound.  There  is  in  this  fact  a 
species  of  self-evidence.  If  a  judge  is  at  once  competent,  and  incontro- 
vertibly  disinterested,  is  not  the  greatest  weight  to  be  attached  to  his 
decision?  Now,  the  illustrious  scholars  referred  to  are  not  only  disin- 
terested, but  they  decide  against  their  own  practice.  How  great,  then, 
must  be  the  weight  of  their  testimony  on  this  question ! 

I  have  charged  President  Beecher  as  deficient  in  discrimination,  and 
as  employing  false  principles  of  interpretation.  For  proof  of  this  I  refer 
to  the  work  entitled  "  Baptism  not  Purification,"  sold  by  Mr.  Burton,  of 
Ipswich.  I  shall  give  my  readers  a  sample  of  the  grounds  on  which  I 
found  my  charge. 

He  makes  the  words  baptismos  and  katharismos  synonymous,  on  the 
ground  that  they  both  in  a  certain  place  refer  to  the  same  rite.  This 
is  an  error  into  which  no  philologist  could  fall :  it  shows  a  remarkable 
deficiency  in  discrimination.  This  I  have  frequently  exemplified.  The 
same  error  is  to  be  found  in  most  of  the  writers  on  that  side  of  the 
question. 

He  makes  baptismos  a  word  designating  purification  in  general, 
Decause  it  is  a  synonyme  of  the  general  word,  katharismos ;  and  the 

487 


488  SECOND    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

general  word  Icatliarismos  he  makes  specific,  as  it  corresponds  to  boptis- 
?nos.  I  have  called  this  legerdemain.  Here,  also,  I  might  offer  a  pre- 
mium for  a  purer  specimen  of  nonsense. 

That  the  disputed  word  signifies  purification,  he  proves  from  Malachi 
iii.  1 — 3.  Does  not  even  a  child  see  that  the  prophet  does  not  refer  to 
ritual  purification,  but  to  the  separation  of  the  chaff  from  the  wheat ; 
and  that  the  prophecy  could  have  been  equally  fulfilled  had  no  ritual 
ordinance  of  purification  ever  been  instituted? 

He  makes  the  title  of  John  the  Baptist  originate  in  the  administra- 
tion of  a  rite  of  purification,  and  he  finds  proof  for  this  in  John's  being 
a  moral  reformer.     May  I  not  offer  another  premium  here  ? 

He  proceeds  on  the  principle,  that  every  occurrence  of  the  word  must 
prove  its  own  meaning.  No  philologist  could  fall  into  such  an  error. 
The  meaning  of  no  word  could  submit  to  such  a  test. 

With  respect  to  the  testimony  of  Josephus,  Mr.  Beecher  tells  us,  that 
"  There  was  nothing  to  cause  Josephus  to  think  of  the  mode,  or  to 
attach  any  importance  to  it."  This  observation  assumes,  as  a  principle, 
that  Josephus  had  a  share  in  giving  this  rite  its  name.  Can  anything  be 
more  unlike  a  philologist?  Can  any  observation  be  more  destitute  of  com- 
mon sense?     Josephus  speaks  of  the  rite  by  the  name  already  given  to  it. 

As  a  proof  that  the  disputed  word  is  often  used  in  the  sense  for  which 
he  contends,  he  alleges  a  passage  in  which  the  word  is  not  used  at  all. 
Is  this  philology  ?  Must  this  be  dignified  as  criticism  ?  Can  the  author 
possess  that  discrimination  which  is  necessary  to  determine  such  a 
question? 

This  is  but  a  small  specimen  of  the  author's  qualifications  as  a  critic, 
yet  it  clearly  manifests  his  incompetency. 

Nothing  alleged  by  Mr.  Beecher  at  all  affects  my  view  of  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Fathers  on  this  subject.  I  still  equally  admit  that  testimony 
in  a  proper  view  of  the  subject.  It  is  their  testimony  as  it  regards  the 
meaning  of  the  word  at  the  time  of  the  institution  or  commencement  of 
the  rite.  I  have  expressly  mentioned  this :  "  I  give  my  opponents  the 
whole  range  of  Greek  literature  till  the  institution  of  the  ordinance  of 
baptism."  It  is  only  as  far  as  the  Fathers  can  testify  as  to  this  fact,  that 
they  are  competent  witnesses.  They  might  also  testify  to  a  secondary 
meaning  without  at  all  affecting  this  subject.  I  have  said,  "  I  deny  a 
secondary  meaning,  not  because  it  would  disprove  immersion,  but 
because  it  wants  the  sanction  of  use."  Notwithstanding  all  the  exam- 
ples alleged  by  Mr.  Beecher,  I  am  still  of  the  same  opinion.  But, 
though  a  secondary  meaning  were  fully  proved,  it  would  not  in  the 
smallest  degree  affect  the  question.  Mr.  Beecher's  confidence  is  an 
additional  proof  of  his  want  of  discrimination.  He  ought  to  perceive 
that  the  Fathers  might  prove  a  secondary  meaning,  while,  at  the  same 
time,  they  prove  that,  in  reference  to  the  original  institution,  the  word 
is  used  in  its  primary  meaning. 

That  the  Fathers  understood  the  word  as  immersion  in  reference  to 
the  institution  of  baptism,  no  scholar  ever  questioned.  To  prove  this 
at  any  length  would  be  totally  unsuitable  to  my  present  work ;  but  I 
shall  submit  two  or  three  arguments  that  I  hesitate  not  to  say  will 


SECOND    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  489 

produce  conviction  on  the  mind  of  every  unprejudiced  reader.     I  shall 
rather  suggest  them  than  urge  them. 

1.  The  Fathers  not  only  practised  immersion,  but  considered  it  essen- 
tial except  in  cases  of  necessity.  This  could  not  have  been  the  case,  if 
they  considered  any  purification  to  fulfil  the  meaning  of  the  word. 

2.  The  question  about  the  validity  of  Novatian's  perfusion  never 
could  have  originated,  had  they  considered  that  any  purification  was  a 
fulfilment  of  the  meaning  of  the  word.  On  that  supposition,  how  could 
any  object  to  perfusion  ? 

3.  Even  when  writing  on  the  subject  of  Novatian's  perfusion,  and 
defending  the  validity  of  it,  Cyprian  considers  it  not  as  baptism  pro- 
perly, but  as  a  valid  substitute  for  baptism. 

4.  Cyprian,  even  in  the  letter  in  which  he  defends  the  validity  of 
perfusion  as  a  substitute  for  baptism  in  cases  of  necessity,  calls  it  an 
abridgement  or  compend  of  the  ordinance. 

5.  In  the  same  letter  Cyprian  uses  the  word  baptizo  in  the  sense  of 
immersion,  in  reference  to  the  ordinance,  in  contradistinction  to  perfusion. 
He  argues  the  validity  of  perfusion  from  the  fact  that  the  persons  who 
were  perfused  in  their  sickness,  were  never  afterwards  baptized,  or 
immersed,  which  they  must  have  been  had  not  perfusion  been  accounted 
valid  in  such  cases.  If,  as  he  reasons,  the  grace  usually  conferred  by  the 
ordinance  has  not  been  received  by  perfusion,  let  them  be  baptized  or 
immersed  when  they  recover :  but  as  this  is  not  the  custom  of  the 
church,  why  do  they  object?  No  evidence  can  be  more  conclusive  than 
this.  This  Father  uses  the  word  in  its  proper  sense  of  immerse,  in 
reference  to  the  ordinance. 

6.  Cyprian  calls  perfusion  the  ecclesiastical  baptism,  as  distinguished 
from  baptism  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term.  The  persons  perfused  in 
their  beds  on  account  of  sickness  were  not  supposed  to  be  properly  bap- 
tized ;  but  they  received  the  ecclesiastical  baptism — that  is,  what  the 
church,  in  such  cases,  admitted  as  a  valid  substitute  for  baptism.  This 
fact  is  conclusive,  and  will  afford  an  answer  to  all  the  passages  referred 
to  by  President  Beecher  to  prove  a  secondary  meaning  in  the  use  of  the 
word  among  the  Fathers.  It  was  not  a  secondary  meaning,  because  it 
never  went  into  general  use ;  but  it  is  called  a  baptism,  because  it 
served  the  same  purpose.  It  would  not  in  the  smallest  degree  affect 
the  subject  in  question,  had  the  word  really  received  such  a  secondary 
meaning ;  but  no  such  secondary  meaning  is  in  proof  from  the  alleged 
examples. 

7.  Tertullian  understood  the  word  in  reference  to  the  ordinance  as 
signifying  immersion.  He  translates  it  by  tingo.  Mr.  Beecher  thinks 
he  has  silenced  this  testimony,  by  translating  the  word  by  purify.  But 
the  disproof  of  this  is  as  certain  as  it  is  short.  What  Tertullian  desig- 
nates by  tingo,  he  designates  by  mergito.  And  if  he  says  ter  mergitamur, 
he  says,  also,  ter  tingimur, —  We  are  thrice  dipped.  It  was  only  one  puri- 
fication, though  it  was  performed  by  three  immersions.  Mr.  Beecher, 
then,  cannot,  by  all  his  torture,  force  tingo. 

8.  It  appears  to  me  self-evident  that  Christ  would  not  appoint  a  rite, 
without  appointing  the  way  of  its  observance. 

62 


490  SECOND    REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER. 

9.  If  the  word  signifies  to  purify,  and  if  all  may  purify  as  they  please, 
then,  all  the  mummery  of  superstition  is  a  fulfilment  of  Christ's  com- 
mand in  the  performance  of  the  ordinance. 

10.  If  the  word  denotes  purification  in  general,  then  we  may  purify 
with  fire,  or  sulphur,  or  salt,  or  oil,  or  anything  we  please,  and  water 
will  not  be  essential.   We  may  dispense  with  water  as  well  as  the  mode. 

11.  If  the  water  is  known  to  be  essential  from  the  practice  recorded 
in  Scripture,  this  will  not  serve  Mr.  Beecher.  He  cannot  reason  on  this 
principle.  According  to  his  principle,  the  first  Christians  might  choose 
water  in  their  purification  ;  but  that  others  were  not  bound  to  their 
example. 

12.  The  Greek  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  and  Josephus  have 
innumerable  occasions  to  use  the  words  designating  the  rites  of  purifica- 
tion. I  have  them  all  drawn  out,  though  they  cannot  be  inserted  on 
this  occasion.  In  not  one  of  them  is  baptizo  used  for  purification.  Can 
anything  more  fully  show  that  the  word  had  not  such  a  signification  1 

Justin  Martyr  not  only  describes  the  performance  of  the  rite  as  an 
immersion,  but  he  speaks  of  it  in  a  way  that  shows  he  considered  the 
mode  as  emblematical,  and,  therefore,  essential  to  the  rite  in  its  proper 
import.  When  he  says,  that  in  this  rite  they  are  born  again,  the  refer- 
ence, without  doubt,  is  to  their  being  in  water  and  coming  out  of  the 
water.  Besides,  he  says,  that  it  is  iti  the  water  they  have  the  remission 
of  sins.  This  shows  that  to  be  in  the  water,  and  to  come  out  of  it,  is 
the  true  meaning  of  the  rite.  He  tells  us  that  the  demons,  hearing  of 
this  washing  from  the  prophet  Isaiah,  induced  their  worshippers  to 
imitate  it;  in  the  first  step  by  sprinkling,  and  in  the  end  using  a  complete 
washing  of  the  body.  In  the  first  step  they  imitated  it  as  a  purification 
by  water :  in  the  last  they  imitated  it  not  only  in  the  water,  but  in  the  man- 
ner of  using  the  water.  In  another  place  he  speaks  of  baptism  as  cleansing 
the  flesh  and  the  body  only :  this  shows  that  the  water  was  applied  to 
the  body  in  general.  He  speaks  of  it,  also,  as  referring  to  cisterns,  or 
pits,  as  trenches  that  are  dug.  It  must,  then,  have  been  an  immersion. 
He  sometimes,  also,  speaks  of  circumcision  as  a  baptism,  or  agreeing  in 
the  emblem,  though  altogether  different  in  the  things  and  in  the  words 
that  designate  them.  Let  President  Beecher  study  this,  and  it  will  show 
how  the  Fathers  can  call  various  things  by  the  name  of  baptism,  without 
importing  that  they  are  included  in  the  meaning  of  the  word.  All  his 
examples  may  be  solved  by  this  single  fact.  In  like  manner  Justin 
speaks  of  Christians  as  having  the  spiritual  circumcision,  of  which  Greeks 
and  those  like  him  were  partakers,  though  they  had  nothing  that  literally 
resembled  what  was  imported  by  the  word.  Justin  speaks,  also,  of  certain 
washings  prescribed  by  Moses  as  being  baptisms.  Now  purification  in 
genera]  would  not  suit  this,  for  every  purification  would  not  fulfil  the 
injunction.  But  the  passage  in  which  he  brings  the  literal  and  the  figura- 
tive applications  of  the  word  to  bear  on  each  other,  puts  Justin's  testimony 
on  this  subject  beyond  controvery.  He  considers  the  prophet's  bringing 
up  the  immersed  head  of  the  axe  out  of  Jordan,  by  casting  in  a  piece 
of  wood,  as  corresponding  to  men  immersed  in  the  greatest  sins,  yet 


SECOND    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER.  491 

brought  out  by  the  crucifixion  of  Christ  and  the  purification  of  water 
What  can  be  more  decisive  than  this?  We  are  supposed  to  be  baptized 
in  the  most  grievous  sins.  What  can  baptism,  then,  be  but  immersion  ? 
Are  we  purified  by  sin  ?  We,  like  the  head  of  the  axe,  are  immersed 
in  sin  :  as  the  axe  was  brought  up  by  the  wood  cast  into  the  river,  so  we 
are  brought  up  and  purified  by  the  baptism  or  sufferings  of  Christ. 
Besides,  when  Justin  speaks  of  purification,  he  never  employs  any  word 
that  signifies  baptism.  If  the  word  had  this  signification  in  his  time, 
why  did  he  sometimes  use  it  in  that  sense? 

In  like  manner,  from  a  figurative  application  of  the  word  by  Origen, 
it  is  decisively  evident  that  he  understood  it  as  meaning  immerse.  He 
speaks  of  persons  totally  given  up  to  sin,  as  being  entirely  immersed  or 
sunk  down  under  wickedness. 

From  a  figurative  application  of  the  word  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus, 
it  is  evident  that  he  understood  it  as  literally  signifying  immersion.  He 
speaks  of  persons  baptized  by  drunkenness  into  sleep.  All  language 
must  recognise  this  figure :  it  is  an  immersion  or  burial  in  sleep.  It  is 
utterly  impossible  that  purification  should  be  the  ground  of  this  figure. 

Gregory  Thaumaturgus  speaks  of  drawing  baptized  persons  up  as  fish 
are  drawn  out  of  water  by  a  line.  Now,  when  a  figure  can  be  definitely 
ascertained  as  to  its  secondary  object,  it  is  the  most  unexceptionable 
way  of  ascertaining  the  literal  meaning  of  a  word. 

That  Tertullian  understood  immersion  to  be  part  of  the  nature  of  the 
rite,  is  evident  from  his  saying,  that  "  in  baptism  we  die  through  a  like- 
ness." There  is  no  death  in  purification  except  when  it  is  performed 
by  immersion. 

Chrysostom  most  definitely  shows  that  he  attached  this  meaning  to  the 
word  by  coupling  it  with  the  word  sink,  and  making  the  action  desig- 
nated by  both  an  emblem  of  burial  and  resurrection.  "  To  be  baptized 
and  to  sink  down,"  says  he,  "  then  to  rise,  is  a  symbol  of  the  going  down 
into  the  grave,  and  of  the  coming  up  from  it."  Here  he  not  only  couples 
baptizing  with  sinking  doton,  but  makes  both  words,  as  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptism,  designate  an  idea  which  is  an  emblem  of  going  down  into 
the  grave.  He  not  only  uses  the  word  in  the  sense  of  immersion,  but 
in  that  sense  he  applies  it  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  No  evidence 
can  be  more  decisive  than  this.  Even  had  the  word  obtained  a  se- 
condary meaning  by  use,  it  is  in  its  primary  that  the  Fathers  apply  it  to 
baptism;  but,  though  the  Fathers  called  many  things  baptism,  the  word 
never  obtained  a  secondary  meaning.  Besides,  Chrysostom  expressly 
expounds  Rom.  vi.  as  asserting  an  emblem  of  burial  and  resurrection  in 
baptism.  This  not  only  proves  that  immersion  was  the  usual  practice  at 
the  time,  but  that  they  considered  this  as  the  appointed  mode  of  the  rite. 

The  three  immersions  used  by  the  ancients  in  the  performance  of  the 
rite  are  called  tria  baptismata,  three  baptisms,  that  is,  three  immersions,  for 
it  could  not  be  three  purifications :  it  was  only  one  purification.  I  am 
well  aware  that  the  three  immersions  may  be  called  also  one  baptism. 
My  philosophy  can  account  for  this.  When  they  are  said  to  be  three 
baptisms,  the  word  is  used  in  reference  to  the  act  of  immersion ;  when 


492  SECOND    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

they  are  called  one  baptism,  the  word  is  used  in  reference  to  the  rite  in  its 
appropriated  sense.  The  three  immersions  are,  in  the  estimation  of  those 
who  used  them,  only  one  rite,  which  was  designated  by  the  name  baptism. 

That  Cyprian,  and  those  concerned  in  the  case  of  Novatian,  understood 
the  word  as  signifying  immersion,  is  clear  to  demonstration,  from  the  fact 
that  the  justification  of  perfusion  was  not  rested  on  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  but  on  other  grounds.  Had  the  word  signified  purification  without 
reference  to  mode,  would  they  not  have  appealed  to  the  meaning  of  the 
word?  Would  Cyprian  have  employed  so  much  trifling  in  vindicating 
the  sufficiency  of  perfusion,  if  he  could  have  found  a  complete  vindica- 
tion in  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and  in  the  essential  nature  of  the  ordi- 
nance? Jerome  also  translated  the  word  in  the  commission  by  intingo, 
to  dip  into,  which  shows  that  in  his  time  the  Greek  word  was  understood 
to  signify  immersion. 

Mr.  B  does  not  understand  my  canon  as  to  impossibility.  He  says, 
that  my  doctrine  is  "  that  we  cannot  admit  a  secondary  sense  unless  we 
can  prove  that  the  primary  sense  is  impossible."  He  leaves  out  an  essen- 
tial part  of  my  canon.  Impossibility  is  required  only  when  a  secondary 
meaning  is  not  in  proof.  If  in  any  occurrence  in  the  language  a  second- 
ary meaning  is  in  proof,  impossibility  of  primary  meaning  is  not  essential 
to  warrant  the  application  of  a  secondary  meaning.  I  have  again  and 
again  explained  this  doctrine. 

He  complains  that  I  assume  universal  use,  though  all  the  occurrences 
of  the  word  are  not  produced.  On  this  ground,  universal  use  could  not 
be  assumed  with  respect  to  any  word,  for  all  the  instances  in  which  any 
word  has  been  used  can  never  be  produced.  It  is  quite  enough,  that 
after  all  the  researches  of  all  writers  on  both  sides  of  the  question  since 
the  birth  of  the  controversy,  a  refractory  instance,  till  the  time  of  the 
institution,  cannot  be  produced. 

The  passages  which  he  quotes  from  the  Fathers  are  all  explicable  on 
the  principle  which  I  have  pointed  out  in  the  sentence  from  Cyprian ; 
but,  were  it  true,  which  it  is  not,  that  the  word  in  process  of  use,  after  the 
institution  of  the  ordinance,  received  a  secondary  meaning,  it  has  no 
bearing  on  this  subject ;  it  does  not  at  all  stand  in  my  way. 

The  passages  from  Clemens  Alexandrinus  in  which  the  word  occurs, 
are  entirely  misunderstood.  Where  did  the  President  learn  that  koite  is 
a  dinner  couch?  It  is  a  bed  for  sleeping  on.  It  is  not,  "  this  was  the 
custom  of  the  Jews  that  they  often  should  be  baptized  upon  their  beds." 
This  passage  refers  to  the  nightly  pollutions  after  which  bathing  was 
prescribed  by  the  law  of  Moses.  They  were  immersed  "  on  account  of 
the  bed;"  that  is,  pollution  contracted  there. 

The. instance  from  Nicephorus  is  perfectly  explicable  from  the  passage 
in  Cyprian's  letters.  Cyprian,  while  he  uses  the  word  baptizo  for  im- 
7nerse,  calls  the  perfusion  of  Novatian  an  ecclesiastical  baptism,  because 
it  was  used  by  the  church  as  conveying  the  same  grace  with  baptism. 
Indeed,  had  the  custom  of  immersion  been  universally  changed  into  any 
other  mode,  the  rite  would  still  have  continued  to  be  called  immersion. 
This,  which  the  President  thinks  must  prove  so  refractory  to  me,  has  not 
the  smallest  difficulty ;  it  is  quite  in  accordance  with  my  doctrine. 


SECOND   REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER.  493 

Mr.  Beecher  represents  the  preposition  ek  as  "  a  preposition  at  war 
with  the  idea  of  immerse."  This  is  an  error  that  no  philologist  could 
hold.  Any  person  who  has  ever  passed  the  threshold  of  the  temple  of 
philology  must  know  that  such  combinations  of  prepositions,  both  in 
composition  and  in  syntax,  are  quite  common.  Prepositions  the  very 
reverse  of  each  other,  are  often  combined  and  prefixed  to  the  same  word. 
I  cannot  pursue  this  subject  here :  I  shall  merely  suggest  it  to  literary 
men.  Even  apobapto  itself  is  used  in  the  same  way  in  the  Septuagint ; 
and  though  it  should  be  supposed  to  mean  wet  or  moisten,  still  the  result 
is  the  same.  Even  wetting  or  moistening  implies  that  the  wetting  or 
moistening  is  effected  while  the  object  is  in  union  with  the  wetting  or 
moistening  substance.  Yet  from,  or  apo,  signifies  separation,  not  union. 
Had  I  no  other  evidence  that  the  President,  however  great  a  man  he 
may  be  in  other  respects,  is  not  a  philologist,  I  could  take  his  measure 
from  this  single  observation.  I  will  make  this  plain  even  to  my  most 
unlearned  readers.  Dr.  Miller,  I  think,  somewhere  in  his  treatise, 
speaks  of  dipping  up  a  bucket  of  water.  Let  a  foreigner  interpret  this 
on  the  principle  of  President  Beecher.  Up,  says  the  critic,  signifies 
ascension ;  dipping,  then,  cannot  denote  immersing,  for  this  implies 
sinking.  The  preposition  is  at  war  with  immerse  as  the  meaning  of  the 
word  dip.  Dip  must,  then,  signify  to  raise,  or  draw,  or  lift — not  to 
immerse ;  and  this  critic  would  know  English  as  the  President  knows 
Greek.  All  languages  must  admit  such  combinations  as  President 
Beecher  supposes  to  be  in  this  case  incongruous. 

The  examples  produced  by  Mr.  Beecher  prove  that  louo  sometimes 
applied  to  other  things  besides  animal  bodies ;  but  none  of  them  prove 
that  the  thing  so  washed  was  not  covered  with  the  water.  This  is  all 
we  want :  the  water  might  be  applied  by  sprinkling,  or  by  pouring,  or 
in  any  way.  Indeed  it  would  be  enough  for  us  if  this  was  its  usual 
signification.  Why  should  it  on  this  subject  be  supposed  to  assume  a 
rare  meaning? 

With  respect  to  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  after  admitting  my  assertion 
that  metaphor  may  indulge  itself  wherever  it  finds  resemblance,  he  says, 
"  But  my  objection  is,  that  there  is  no  resemblance  between  the  operations 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  immersion."  Is  not  the  resemblance  in  the 
effects? 

With  respect  to  my  illustrations,  "  steeping  the  senses  in  forgetful- 
ness,"  "  steeping  the  soul  in  the  milk  of  human  nature,"  "  be  not 
drunk  with  wine,  but  be  filled  with  the  Spirit,"  he  says, — "  How,  I  ask, 
are  the  words  to  steep,  to  be  drunk,  and  to  fill,  verbs  denoting  the  mode 
of  an  action,  and  that  alone?  or  are  they  words  denoting  an  effect?" 
This  is  a  strange  observation  for  a  man  of  letters.  It  is  no  matter  what 
the  verbs  signify  if  they  can  be  figuratively  applied  with  regard  to  their 
effects.  Words  can  be  used  figuratively  where  the  resemblance  is  not 
in  their  literal  signification,  but  in  their  effects.  Besides,  would  any 
philologist — would  any  intelligent  child  say,  that  steep  denotes  an  effect  ? 
Steep  denotes  a  certain  action  which  has  a  certain  effect. 

The  metaphysical  nonsense,  for  the  exceeding  of  which  I  offered  a 
premium,  Mr.  Beecher  ascribes  to  several  of  the  Fathers.     I  find  nothing 


494  SECOND    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

like  it  in  his  quotations;  and  notwithstanding  the  modesty  of  the  Presi- 
dent, I  must  still  think  that  the  union  of  meanings  running  into  one 
another  is  all  his  own. 

He  complains  that  I  unjustly  represent  him  as  founding  on  probability 
independently  of  the  meaning  of  the  word.  I  reiterate  the  charge.  Does 
he  not  perceive  that  by  the  meaning  of  the  word  I  understand  a  previ- 
ously ascertained  meaning?  To  this  he  does  not  even  pretend.  I  found 
all  on  meaning  previously  ascertained :  this  is  a  fundamental  difference 
between  him  and  me. 

The  characteristic  meaning  of  the  word  klizo  is  exactly  what  I  have 
represented ;  and  all  the  examples  accord  with  this :  but  the  example  to 
which  he  refers  has  no  bearing  on  the  subject.  When  he  alleges  proof 
that  persons  may  go  to  a  river  for  other  purposes  than  the  immersion  of 
the  whole  body,  he  manifests  a  want  of  discrimination.  Our  argument 
is  grounded  on  the  fact  that  the  going  to  the  water  was  for  the  purpose 
of  baptism.  When  our  opponents  triumph,  and  tell  us  that  if  our  argu- 
ment is  conclusive,  Philip  was  baptized  as  well  as  the  eunuch,  their 
triumph  is  in  their  want  of  discrimination. 

In  defending  the  combination  of  his  probabilities,  he  makes  a  distinc- 
tion as  to  the  nature  of  the  subjects ;  but,  on  all  subjects,  nothing  is 
nothing;  and  if  I  have  proved  that  the  probabilities  are  nothing  separately, 
nothing  must  they  be  in  combination.  Besides,  the  probability  that, 
independently  of  testimony,  a  thing  was  done  in  a  certain  way,  is  a  very 
different  thing  from  the  probability  that  a  word  has  a  certain  meaning. 
That  A  killed  B  may  be  very  probable  from  many  circumstances ;  but 
the  moment  A  proves  an  alibi,  or  that  it  is  proved  that  C  is  guilty  of 
the  murder,  all  the  previous  probabilities  are  of  no  account. 

After  all  his  complaints  about  a  bad  spirit,  it  is  amusing  to  consider 
the  gross  manifestations  which  he  affords  of  this  himself.  In  all  I  have 
ever  written  I  defy  my  adversaries  to  point  out  one  particle  of  a  bad 
spirit.  My  severity  respects  the  execution  of  the  work  before  me,  and 
my  censures  are  preceded  by  proofs  of  the  thing  condemned.  Justice  to 
truth  demands  the  exposure.  But  what  spirit  is  indicated  by  such 
expressions  as  "  the  guise  of  zeal  for  the  glory  of  God?"  "  Being  deter- 
mined not  to  admit  the  truth,  he  did  the  only  thing  that  remained,  first 
to  misrepresent,  and  then  to  deny  it?"  If  this  is  not  a  bad  spirit,  what 
will  indicate  a  bad  spirit?  But  in  the  field  of  battle  I  never  murmur. 
I  never  pronounce  on  the  motives  of  my  opponents ;  but  I  always,  as  a 
matter  of  duty,  measure  their  talents.  This  they  are  pleased  to  call  a 
bad  spirit,  while  they  have  poured  out  whole  torrents  of  the  most  virulent 
abuse :  this  never  moves  me, — I  write  for  eternity. 

I  had  charged  President  Beecher  with  using  a  Unitarian  canon.  How 
does  he  repel  the  charge?  He  tells  me  that  a  good  canon  is  not  the 
worse  for  being  employed  by  Unitarians.  I  redouble  the  charge.  A 
Unitarian  canon  is  not  a  sound  canon  employed  by  Unitarians  as  well 
as  others.  A  Unitarian  canon  is  one  which,  if  admitted,  will  prove 
Unitarianism.  What  a  want  of  discrimination  is  in  this  defence !  A 
canon  that  is  sound  ought  to  be  used  by  all.  A  Unitarian  canon  cannot 
be  sound,  unless  Unitarianism  is  true. 


SECOND   REPLY   TO    PRESIDENT   BEECHER.  495 

To  enable  my  readers  to  estimate  the  qualifications  of  my  antagonist 
as  a  controversialist,  I  shall  slightly  notice  the  several  particulars  which 
he  states  in  recommendation  of  his  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  in 
dispute.  To  judge  on  this  matter  requires  nothing  but  a  sound  intellect 
and  an  unprejudiced  mind.  He  tells  us,  for  instance,  that  to  adopt  his 
conclusions  "  takes  nothing  from  any  one  but  the  right  to  think  others 
wrong,"  &.c.  Now  was  there  ever  a  purer  specimen  of  absurdity  than 
this  ?  Were  it  as  true  as  it  is  false,  it  could  not  take  from  any  man  the 
right  to  think  another  wrong.  Must  not  every  one  who  thinks  his  own 
view  on  any  subject  right,  think  all  others  wrong  who  differ  from  him  ? 
Does  not  the  writer  think  that  I  am  wrong  ? 

Six  special  advantages,  as  recommendations  of  this  view,  are  enume- 
rated by  the  writer.  "1.  It  is  more  adapted  to  the  varying  conditions 
of  men,  and  to  all  change  of  climate,  times,  seasons,  and  health."  Im- 
mersion is  not  injurious  to  health  in  any  climate :  but  should  the  physi- 
cian, in  any  case,  recommend  the  warm  bath,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent 
it.  If  the  believer  is  on  a  sick  bed,  or  death  bed,  the  rite  is  not  a  duty. 
Clinical  perfusion  could  never  have  been  introduced  as  a  substitute  for 
baptism,  had  not  Puseyism  been  previously  introduced.  Is  there  as  much 
danger  in  immersion  as  there  was  in  circumcision?  Had  the  matter 
been  left  to  himself,  I  doubt  not  but  the  ingenuity  of  Abraham  would 
have  found  that  shaving  the  head  would  have  been  better  adapted  to  the 
comfort  of  himself  and  his  posterity. 

But  it  is  perfect  absurdity  to  talk  of  recommendations  on  one  side  or 
the  other,  on  such  a  matter.  Whatever  God  has  appointed  must  be 
observed.  Had  God  appointed  two  modes,  giving  us  a  discretionary 
power  to  observe  which  of  them  should  be  most  pleasing  to  us,  we  might 
make  a  choice :  but  whatever  recommendations  a  thing  may  have  to  us, 
God  may  have  good  reason  for  appointing  a  different. 

"  2.  It  is  more  accordant,"  says  the  writer,  "  with  the  liberal  and  en- 
larged spirit  of  Christianity,  as  a  religion  of  freedom,  designed  for  all 
countries  and  all  times." 

Does  the  writer  mean  that  the  prescription  of  mode,  as  emblematical 
in  a  Christian  rite,  is  inconsistent  with  the  practice  of  religion  ?  Another 
may  as  well  say,  that  the  prescription  of  water,  or  of  wine,  or  of  any- 
thing else,  is  equally  inconsistent  with  Christianity.  What  a  notion  this 
writer  must  have  of  religious  freedom ! 

"  3.  It  better  agrees,"  says  the  author,  "  with  our  ideas  of  what  is 
reasonable  and  fit."  And  will  the  writer  take  on  him  to  say  that  it  is 
not  reasonable  and  fit  in  God  to  appoint  immersion  as  the  mode  of  this 
ordinance,  as  an  emblem  of  the  burial  of  Christ?  If  this  is  not  blas- 
phemous, I  know  not  what  blasphemy  is. 

"4.  It  offers,"  says  the  writer,  "  no  temptations  to  formalism,  nor  does 
it  tend  to  foster  arrogance  and  exclusion."  Here  is  the  very  spirit  of 
philosophy.  How  does  immersion,  or  any  other  mode  appointed  by  God, 
offer  a  temptation  to  formalism  ?  Is  it  formalism  to  observe  a  mode 
which  by  the  very  supposition  is  appointed  by  God?  Is  it  formalism  to 
observe  Divine  forms?  As  to  arrogance,  is  it  arrogant  to  say  that 
immersion  is  the  only  mode,  if  it  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  ?  As  to 


496  SECOND    REPLY    TO    PRESIDENT    BEECHER. 

exclusion,  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  not  concerned  in  settling  the 
question  of  church  fellowship. 

"  5.  It  is  perfectly  adequate,"  says  the  author,  "  to  harmonise  the 
church."  What  a  recommendation !  Is  it  not  obvious  to  every  human 
intellect,  that  any  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  word,  if  it  is  universally 
received,  is  equally  calculated  to  effect  harmony?  The  advocates  of 
pouring,  of  sprinkling,  of  immersing,  &,c.  &-c,  may  all  equally  allege 
this  recommendation.  Even  if  a  man  should  say  that  the  word  signifies 
to  tattoo,  he  may  say  that,  if  all  parties  receive  this  meaning,  it  would 
harmonise  the  church.  Was  ever  such  a  specimen  of  reasoning  com- 
mitted to  the  types  ? 

"  6.  It  is  susceptible,"  says  the  author,  "  of  any  necessary  degree  of 
proof."  This  confounds  evidence  with  recommendation.  If  it  is  capable 
of  proof,  it  should  be  received  without  any  recommendation.  If  it  is  not 
proved,  no  recommendation  can  entitle  it  to  reception. 

Now  I  call  the  attention  of  my  plain,  unlettered  readers  to  this  brief 
specimen  of  my  antagonist's  reasoning  powers,  that  they  may  judge  what 
confidence  they  are  to  place  in  his  criticism.  If  in  matters  of  common 
sense  he  stumbles  at  every  step,  can  he  be  trusted  in  matters  of  the  most 
profound  metaphysics?  My  antagonist  may  be  a  very  ingenious  man, 
and  a  very  pious  man,  and  in  many  respects  a  very  clever  man,  but  he 
has  not  a  head  for  the  philosophy  of  language :  and  I  say  this  with  as 
little  bad  feeling  as  I  say  that  the  three  angles  of  every  triangle  are  equal 
to  two  right  angles. 


PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTURE  QUOTED  OR  REFERRED  TO. 


Chap.  Ver: 

GENESIS 

i.  26     . 

rii.I  .    . 

xv.  5  .    . 

xvii.  5  .     . 

xvii.  13,  23 

xxiv.  16  .    . 


EXODUS 
xii.  22     . 
sii.  43      . 
six.  4  .     . 
xxix.  4  .    . 
xxix.  45 
xxx.  18—20 
xxx.  19 
xxxii.  11 
xxxiv.  3 — 8 


Page 

.  147 

.  218 
.  218 
.  219 
.  225 
.  131 


30,  320 

.  228 

.  478 

325,  443 

221 

443 

325 

221 

421 


LEVITICUS. 

i.9 326 

iv.  6 30 

iv.  17     .    30,  96,  317 

ix.9 30 

xi.32     .    30,71,327 

xiv.  6 30 

xiv.  16  .  31,  96, 317 
xxv.  39—46  .  .  .227 
xxvi.  44     ....  221 


NUMBERS 
viii.  5 


viii.  7 
',  xix.  17 
xix.  18 
xix.  19 
xix.  20 
xxv.  13 
xxxi.  23 


.  .  325 
.  .  405 
.62,405 
.  31,66 
.  .  66 
.  .  325 
.  .  219 
327, 444 


DEUTERONOMY, 
xiv.  21     ....  227 
.  326 


xxii.  9 

xxiii.  20 

xxxii.  42 

xxxiii.  24 


.  .  227 
.81,402 
.31,402 


JOSHUA. 

iii.  15    .    .    , 


JUDGES. 


vij.  5 


31 


131 


Chap.  Ver. 


RUTH. 


ii.  14 


Page 


31 


1  SAMUEL. 

xiv 

27    ...    . 

31 

XV 

4      .    .    .    . 
1  KINGS. 

339 

iv 

7      .    .    .    . 

181 

V 

9      .    .    .    . 

181 

viii 

13    ...    . 

222 

IX 

3      .    .    .    . 

222 

XIV 

10,  &c.      .    . 

181 

XV11 

5      .    .    .    . 

339 

XV111 

33    ...    . 
2  KINGS. 

394 

V. 

10,14    .    .    . 

272 

V. 

14     .    .    .59,313 

VI 

4      .... 

131 

VU1 

15    ...    . 

32 

2  CHRONICLES 

iv 

6      .    .    .    . 

444 

EZRA. 

x.  3, 44    .    .    .  208 

NEHEMIAH. 

xiii.23,24  .    .    .208 

JOB. 
ix.  31 


PSALMS 

xiv. 2      .    . 

lxviii.  23     .    . 

Ixix.  1,2, 14 

lxxvii.    .     .    . 

cxxxiii.  2      .    . 


32,291 


112 

32 

87 

413 

116 


ISAIAH, 
i.  16    .    .    .    .  469 
iii.  14    ....  222 
xxi.  4      .    .      86, 317 

JEREMIAH, 
xxx.  31    ....  216 
xxxi.  33    .     .     .     .214 
xxxv.  2— 11   .    .    .193 

63 


Chap.  Ver. 

EZEKIEL. 
xxiii.  15  .  .  . 
xxxii.  14     .     .     . 


Page 

.     54 
.  .87 


DANIEL, 
iv.  30  .  .  . 
v.21     .    .    . 

MALACHI. 
iii.  1—3  .    .    . 


36 

35 


488 


MATTHEW. 


x. 

xii. 

xiv. 

xv. 

xviii. 

xix. 

xx. 

xx. 

xxiv. 

xxvi, 

xxvi. 

xxvi. 

xx  viii. 

xxviii, 


1  . 

5,6 
6  . 
6—13 
11 

16 
3  . 

5  . 

6  . 
16 
40 
3  . 
6  . 
1  . 
13—15 
21 
22 

15 

12 

23 

39 

18 

19 


.  331 
.  178 
.  373 
.  126 
.  121 
.  129 
.  199 
.  340 
.  76 
.  295 
.  150 
.  294 
.  236 
.  200 
.  198 
.  139 
87,117 
.  340 
148,  164 
27 
118 
179 
169 


MARK. 


i.4 
i.5 
i.9 

vii.  3 
vii.  4 

x.15 

x.37 

xiv.  20 

xvi.  16 


.  .  175,279 
126,297,302 
.  .  297,373 
.  .  321,406 
67,71,76,397 
419,448,450 
....  200 
....  87 
....  32 
.     .    173,254 


LUKE. 


iii.  16 
vi.  29 


292 

358 


497 


498         PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTURE  QUOTED  OR  REFERRED  TO. 


Chap.  Ver.  Page 

ix.  61  ....  299 
xi.  37  ....  323 
xi.38     .    .    67,  406, 

448,  450. 
xii.50     ....  118 

xiii.4 340 

xvi.  24     ....     32 

xix.9 196 

xxi.  37     ....  299 

JOHN, 
i.  23, 28    .    .    .  126 

ii.  6 323 

iii 110 

iii.  3 469 

iii.  5  .    .    .  164,211, 

476,  479. 
iii.  23    .  141,344,476 
iii.  25, 26    .  178,  350, 

429,  434. 
iv.  1—3  .     .  178,  354 


iv.  2  . 

iv.  14 

iv.53 

vi.  42 
vii.  41,  42 
viii.  20 

ix.7  . 

x.23 

x.40 

xi.32 
xii.  3  . 
xiii.  26 

xx.  22 


202 

106 

183 

72 

73 

340 

484 

340 

126 

300 

148 

32 

110 


ACTS. 
i.  5 292 

i.5— 8  ....  110 

ii.  1 436 

ii.  2 110 

ii.  16— 39  .  .  .112 
i  ii.  17  ....  407 
ii.  38  .  .  179, 203, 354 
viii.  12  ....  180 
viii.  12,  13.  16  .  .  354 
viii.  36  ....  128 
viii.  38,  39    .  129,  141, 

355. 
viii.  39     ....  340 


viii.  40 
ix.  18 
x.  16 
x.40 
x.  46 
x.  47,  48 


301 
356 
192 
359 
118 
358 


xi.  15— 17  .    118,407 


Chap.  Ver. 
xi.  16 
xv.  9  . 
xvi.  15 

xviii.  8  . 

xviii.  21 
xix. 

xix.  1  . 
xix.  1—6 
xix.  4 — 7 
xx.  7  . 
xxi.  13 
xxii.  16 

xxiii.  11 


age 

.    .  292 

.     .  478 

.    .  359 

182,  361 

.    .  301 

.    .  420 

.    .  176 

.    .  372 

.    .  362 

.    .  232 

.    .  301 

180,  212, 

356,  461. 

.    .    .  301 


ROMANS. 

ii.28  ....  222 
iii.  1,2.  .  .  .230 
iv.  11  .  .  214,  224 
vi.  1  .    .     .  370,  383, 

411,  420. 
vi.  3  .    .  142,  &c.  423 
vi.  3— 5    ...    212 
vi.  4     .     .     .  145,  475 
ix.  6 222 

x.  4 220 


1  CORINTHIANS. 
i.  1 


192 

361 

232 

.  165,212,478 

•14  .     .     .  207 

119,  412 


i.  13—17  . 

ii.  23 
vi.  11 
vii.  12— 

x.l  .    . 

x.  2 421 

xii.  13     .    .    117,212 
xiv.40      .     .     .     .247 

xv.  1 150 

xv.  29     .    .    163,212 
xvi.  15     ....  193 

GALATIANS. 
iii.  7—9 ....  218 

iii.  8 220 

iii.  13, 14, 26-29.  206 
iii.  27  .  .  .  .  213 
iv.  19  ....  478 
v.  2— 6,27     .    .213 

EPHESIANS. 

i.  13     .    .    •    .  235 

iv.5 212 

iv.  30     ....  235 

v.26  .165,212,478 
vi.  1 187 


COLOSSIANS. 

Chap.  Ver.  Page 

ii.  11, 12      ...  228 

ii.  12      144, 145, 157, 

212,387,411, 

423,476. 

iii.  20     ....  187 

1  TIMOTHY 
iii.  4 182 

TITUS, 
iii.  5  .    .    .    165,211 

HEBREWS, 
viii.  10, 11     .    .    .216 

ix.  9 324 

ix.  10  .  76, 368. 404, 
419,421,442. 
ix.  19  ....  368 
ix.  22  ....  434 
x.22  .  33,164,212, 
479. 

1  PETER, 
i.  22     ....  479 
i.  23      ....  212 

iii.  20,21  .  212, 3S8, 
412,462,476, 
478. 

REVELATION 

i.  5 47S 

xix.  13     ....    32 


Chaldee  Version  *.  .  54 
Dutch  Testament  .  22 
German  Testament  .  22 
Hebrew  Version  .  .  54 
Icelandic  Testament  22 
Saxon  Testament  .  22 
Septuagint  34,  35,  54,  59, 

63, 288,  312,  493. 
Syriac  Version    .    37,  320 


APOCRYPHA. 

Chap.    Ver;  Page 

"Tobit  vi.  2  .     .    .    .444 

Judith  xii.  7      .      77,  273 

Ecclesiasticus  xxxi.  25,320 

xxxiv.  25     .     .     .  454 

xxxiv.  30    .    .  66,  396 

2  Maccabees  i.  21     .    32 

xiv.  21    ....  326 


AUTHORS  QUOTED  OR  REFERRED  TO. 


.Elian.  20,  25,45,  4S5. 

jEsop,  62,  409. 

jEschylus,  45.  m 

Alexander  Aphroditus,  297. 

Anacreon,  30. 

Aratus,  29. 

Aristophanes,  27,  28,  33,  47,  51. 

Aristotle,  21,  25,  28,  29,  47,  53,  284. 

Arrian,  44,  138,  451,  485. 

Athenaeus,  28. 

Beecher,  President,  274,  &c.  429,  &c. 
Bickersteth,  Mr.  23S,  &c. 
Bickersteth,  Friend  of  Mr.  447. 
Bloomfield,  Mr.  449. 
Booth,  Mr.  50,  108. 
Bruce,  Mr.  76. 

Callimachus,  34. 

Campbell,  Dr.  68,  69,  122,  134,  164,  3S4. 
Campbell,  Dr.  George,  420.  m 

Campbell,  Dr.  of  Aberdeen,  4S0,  481,  483, 

484. 
Charlotte  Elizabeth,  456. 
Chrysostom,  438,  471,  491. 
Clemens  Alexandrinus,  80,  470,  491,  492. 
Congregational  Magazine,  281,  &c. 
Cowper,  29,  78,  109,  291,  300,  310,  311, 

338,  339,  360,  483,  484,  485. 
Cox,  Dr.  34,  36,  37,  53,  54,  150. 
Ctesias,  482. 
Cyprian,  393,  417,  489,  492. 

Didvmus,  30. 

Dio,  65. 

Diodorus  Siculus,  5S,  65. 

Dionysius,  59,  139. 

Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  27. 

Dioscorides,  51. 

Dvvight,  Dr.  175,  215. 

Euripides,  28,  203. 

Eusebius,  299,  393,  486. 

Ewing,  Mr.  34,  36,  53,  54,  69,  71,  &c.  87, 

181. 
Ewing-s, Mr.  (Appendix) 25, 28,  40, 61, 62, 

135,  137,  &c. 

Fuller,  Mr.  309. 

Gale,  Dr.  19,  21,  &c.  to  71,  284. 
Gazette  de  France    387. 
Gibbon,  167. 
Goldsmith,  167. 
Gotch,  Mr.  276. 


Greenfield,  Mr.  278. 

Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  86,491. 

Haldane,  Mr.  225,  227, 230. 

Hall,  Mr.  417,  &c. 

Hallett,  Mr.  199. 

Hamilton,  Rev.  W.  T.  416. 

Hammond,  Mr.  62. 

Harpocratian,  28. 

Hawkins,  Dr.  16. 

Heliodorus,  62,  85. 

Henderson,  Dr.  263,  &c. 

Heraclides,  20,  482. 

Heraclides  Ponticus,  59. 

Herodotus,  29,  30,  34,  149,  337,  339,  482. 

Hesiod,  4S1. 

Hippocrates,  39,  40,  41,  42,  43,  44,  51,  64, 

460,  482,  483. 
Homer,  29,  48,  59,  61,  77,  78,  143,  149, 

300,  310,  311,  338,  339,  341,  360,  483, 

4S4,  485,  486. 
Hooker,  2, 12. 

Innes,  Mr.  224,  225. 

Jamblichus,  26. 

Jerome,  292,  492. 

Johnson,  Dr.  2,  9,  56,  245. 

Josephus,  62,  63,  64,  84,  97,  98,  149,  263, 

287,  288,  289,  337,  347,  440,  486,  488. 
Justin  Martyr,  326,  409,  410, 417, 444, 463 

469,470,471,486,490. 

King,  Lord  Chancellor,  4. 

Lactantius,  80. 
Libanius,  85. 
Lightfoot,  68. 
Livy,  84. 
Locke,  138. 

Londonderry  Sentinel,  268. 
Lucian,  49,  58,  285,  486 
Lycophron,  27. 

Macknight,  324. 

Marcus  Antoninus  Pius,  52. 

Martial,  81. 

Matthias,  299,  300,  301,  302. 

Miller,  Dr.  364,  &c.  406,  410,  493. 

Milton,  47,  92,  114. 

Moschus,  25,  149. 

Munro,  Mr.  421,  &c. 

Newman,  Dr.  23. 

Nicolas  of  Damascus,  45,  485. 

Novatian,  489,  492. 

499 


500 


AUTHORS  QUOTED  OR  REFERRED  TO. 


Origen,  491. 
Owen,  Dr.  50. 

Parkhurst,  57,  68. 
Pastoral  Annals,  269. 
Petavius,  245. 
Pindar,  49. 
Phavorinus,  33,  53. 
Plato,  53,  158. 
Pliny,  54. 

Plutarch,  52,  58,  61,  62,  82. 
Pococke,  Dr.  67. 
Pollux,  52,  53,  68. 
Polybius,  57,  65. 
Porphyry,  58,  65,  403. 
Porson,  Professor,  23. 
Pseudo-Didymus,  59. 

Robinson,  Mr.  22,  72. 
Rosenmuller,  450. 

Scapula,  49,  51. 
Schelhornius,  86. 
Schleusner,  317,  340,  343. 
Scott,  Sir  Walter,  390. 
Seneca,  53. 
Shakspeare,  81. 
Simonides,  485. 
Sophocles,  27,  49. 


Stephens,  53. 

Strabo,  58,  284. 

Stuart,  Professor,  324,  409. 

Suidas,  26,  33. 

Tertullian,  19,  55,  292, 299,  332,  489,491. 

Themistius,  59. 

Theocritus,  24,  27. 

Thorn,  Mr.  427. 

Thucydides,  137. 

Turretine,  61. 

Virgil,  38,  39,  47,  77,  80,  108. 
Vossius,  61. 

Wall,  Dr.  30,  33,  66. 

Wardlaw,    Dr.    72,    77,    120,    132,    134, 

155,  &c.  181. 
Wetstein,  68. 

Whately,  Archbishop,  (throughout  Chap.  I.) 
Whiston's  Josephus,  77. 
Whitecross,  Mr.  456,  458. 
Williams,  Dr.  217. 
Wiseman,  Dr.  311,  437. 
Wolffe,  Dr.  273. 

Xenophon,  49,  300,  339. 

Zimmerman  2. 


CRITICAL  NOTICES  OF  CARSON  ON  BAPTISM,  IN 
ENGLAND. 


Rev.  John  Foster,  (Author  of  the  Essay  on  Popular  Ignorance,  Decision  of  Charac- 
ter, &c.)  "  I  am  pleased  that  the  work  is  to  be  reprinted  with  the  proposed  corrections 
and  additions.  No  doubt  many  of  our  ministers  will  make  an  effort  to  obtain  subscrip- 
tions. I  have  mentioned  it  here  to  Dr.  ,  who  gives  his  name  for  a  copy.  I  add 
my  name  of  course." 

A.  K.  Miller,  Esq.  "  It  appears  to  me  that  the  friends  of  evangelical  religion  at 
large,  are  deeply  indebted  to  him,  how  tardy  soever  they  may  be  in  making  the  ac- 
knowledgment. Other  men  of  far  inferior  calibre  have  had  their  honours  heaped  upon 
them ;  but  do  I  speak  more  than  the  words  of  truth  and  soberness,  when  I  say  that 
here  is  a  man  who  has  advanced  every  subject  on  which  he  has  written,  and  who  in 
some  respects  is  in  advance  of  the  age  in  which  he  lives — here  is  a  man,  a  mere  shred 
of  whose  capital  has  made  some  men  of  small  means  great,  and  some  really  great  men, 
greater  still — himself  all  the  while  more  unassuming  than  his  fellows.  Among  his  ex- 
cellencies I  have  always  rated  high  his  impartiality  and  singleness  of  purpose.  One  is 
never  in  doubt  that  his  object  is  truth,  and  that  his  determination  is  to  follow  evidence 
whithersoever  it  leads,  untrammelled  by  system  or  sect.  The  freedom  from  bias  and 
independent  honesty  in  argument  ever  evinced  by  this  writer,  are  qualities  which  we 
have  greatly  to  desiderate  in  many  controversialists  of  the  present  day.  Though  I  am 
not  a  member  of  a  Baptist  church,  yet  I  am  anxious  to  encourage  any  work  proceeding 
from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Carson,  distinguished  as  he  is  by  the  highest  talent,  and  exhibiting 
as  he  ever  does,  the  most  perfect  candour.  I  am  happy  to  learn  that  the  subscribers 
are  so  numerous,  and  request  you  will  put  down  my  name  for  five  copies." 

Rev.  E.  Hall,  A.  M.  "  I  refer  to  Carson,  because  his  research  has  made  this  field 
his  own  on  the  Baptist  side  of  the  question ;  because  he  is  undoubtedly  a  very  learned 
and  able  man, — the  chief,  indeed,  on  the  Baptist  side  in  this  part  of  the  field  of  con- 
troversy." 

Rev.  B.  H.  Draper,  LL.D.  "  Let  those  who  think  that  the  solemn  immersion  of 
believers  in  water  is  not  baptism,  answer,  if  they  can,  fairly,  and  without  evasion, 
the  learned,  candid,  and  decisive  work  of  Mr.  Carson." 

Congregational  Magazine.  "  If  what  Mr.  Carson  terms  axioms  are  indeed  such, 
the  matter  is  for  ever  set  at  rest ;  and  except  prejudice  or  an  obstinate  determination  to 
reject  the  obvious  dictates  of  the  Spirit  continues  to  operate,  the  whole  Christian  world 
must  forthwith  embrace  the  principles  of  anti-pcedobaptism." 

Presbyterian  Review.    "  We  have  no  fault  to  find  with  Mr.  Carson's  axioms." 

501 


502  CRITICAL  NOTICES  OF  CARSON  ON  BAPTISM. 

Eclectic  Review.  "It  is  quite  evident  that  they,"  (referring  to  two  of  Dr.  C.'s 
works,)  "  are  the  production  of  a  writer  long  habituated  to  deep  and  searching  thought, 
and  possessing  a  great  command  of  language."  And  while  the  Review  states  that 
Dr.  Carson  "  touches  unquestionably  with  a  vigorous  and  masterly  hand  a  great  variety 
of  topics  ;"  it  also  attests  "  the  great  simplicity,  judiciousness,  and  piety,"  with  which 
they  are  treated." 

Scotsman.  "  Dr.  Carson  has  long  been  well  known,  not  only  in  this  country,  but  in 
Great  Britain  and  America,  as  a  first-rate  scholar,  a  sound  philosopher,  an  irresistible 
reasoner,  and  a  profound  theologian.  *****  jjis  works  shall  be  his  monument 
— a  monument  of  diversified  and  transcendent  genius,  of  imperishable  greatness ; 
evincing  to  posterity,  that  with  the  strictest  propriety,  he  has  been  designated  one  of 
the  first  biblical  critics  of  the  nineteenth  century.' 

Scottish  Guardian.  "  As  a  profound  and  accurate  thinker,  an  able  metaphysician, 
a  close  reasoner,  a  deep  theologian,  Dr.  Carson  can  stand  the  ground  against  any 
rivalship." 

Orthodox  Presbyterian.  "  On  matters  of  church  order  it  is  well  known  we  differ 
from  him  ;  but  as  a  scholar  we  honour  him,  as  a  Christian  brother  we  embrace  him.  In 
knowledge  of  the  philosophy  of  language  he  is  far  in  advance  of  the  present  age ; 
and  with  respect  to  metaphysical  acuteness  and  powers  of  reasoning,  he  has  been 
called  '  the  Jonathan  Edwards  of  the  nineteenth  century.'  His  character  as  a  philoso- 
phic theologian  and  a  profound  original  independent  thinker,  stands  in  the  very  highest 
rank ;  and  he  was  only  justly  designatea,  when  called  one  of  the  most  acute  philoso- 
phic reasoners  of  the  present  age." 

Christian  Freeman.  "  The  Rev.  Alexander  Carson,  one  of  the  first  biblical  critics 
of  the  age.  The  great  and  almost  singular  excellencies  of  this  most  extraordinary  man 
are  his  clear  philosophical  conceptions,  and  his  fearless  philosophical  spirit.  Even  the 
German  exegetical  writers  are  only  scholars  :  the  true  critic  is  made  up  of  the  scholar 
and  philosopher  combined." 


/4 


r\ 


pi 


y¥f: 


f 


■ 


A/~i  ■ 


-      £^7*4->' 


f 


